Ramos introduces bill to ensure victim notification about assailant parole conditions while avoiding revictimization

Protecting crime victims’ rights by ensuring they receive timely notifications about an offender’s release, parole hearings, escapes, or special parole conditions is the goal of newly introduced legislation.

Assemblymember James C. Ramos (D–San Bernardino) authorized AB 1681.

“Making sure that victims are kept up to date on critical notifications about an offender is crucial,” Ramos stated. “The current process is burdensome on victims because they must complete a form to receive notifications about an offender although the courts and attorneys already have the victim’s information on hand. Improving the accessibility and completion of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Form 1707 must become an immediate priority to safeguard victims’ rights. It is a burden that should be removed from their shoulders and avoids revictimizing them.”

AB 1681 also aims to increase completion of the CDCR Form 1707. If the bill were to become law, it would require that in cases resulting in a sentence to state prison, the court and prosecuting agency shall ensure that the victim and victim’s next-of-kin contact information is provided to the CDCR at the time of sentencing for purposes of victim notification. 

Currently, about 75% of victims aren’t submitting the form, which means they may miss critical notifications about an offender. 

Even though these updates are rights guaranteed under Marsy’s Law, many victims either find the form too confusing or burdensome or wrongly assume CDCR automatically gets their contact information from the courts. 

Ramos stated the CDCR Form 1707 must be easier to understand and complete as it is an urgent step toward protecting victims’ safety and their rights.

“The rights of victims do not end with a conviction,” said Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said. “No one who has had to undergo the trauma of becoming a crime victim and then the trauma of having to relive that experience during the court process should not have to shoulder the burden of filling out additional paperwork just to ensure they receive timely notifications about offender release, parole hearings, escapes, and special parole conditions. These notifications are not discretionary — they are rights guaranteed to victims under Marsy’s Law, which I helped pass in 2008 as the statewide campaign manager to ensure victims’ rights are codified in the California constitution. I am thankful for the support of Assemblymember Ramos in providing some much needed relief for victims by automating their registration with CDCR and ensuring the voices of victims will continue to be heard.”

AB 1681 is co-sponsored by the California District Attorneys Association, Orange County District Attorney’s Office and San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office. 

Details
Written by: Lake County News Reports

Law that built the internet turns 30 – a legal expert explains what would happen if efforts to repeal Section 230 succeed

Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., are vocal critics of Section 230. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has become a political lightning rod in recent years. The law, part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 signed into law on Feb. 8, 1996, shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content while allowing moderation done in good faith.

A group of bipartisan lawmakers led by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has filed a bill to sunset Section 230 by 2027 in order to spur a renegotiation of its provisions. The bill would start a timer on reforming or replacing Section 230. If no agreement is reached by the deadline, Section 230 would cease to be law.

The debate over the law centers on balancing accountability for harmful content with the risks of censorship and stifled innovation. As a legal scholar, I see dramatic potential effects if Section 230 were to be repealed, with some platforms and websites blocking any potentially controversial content. Imagine Reddit with no critical comments or TikTok stripped of political satire.

The law that built the internet

Section 230, often described as “the 26 words that created the internet,” arose in response to a 1995 ruling penalizing platforms for moderating content. The key provision of the law, (c)(1), states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This immunizes platforms such as Facebook and Yelp from liability for content posted by users.

Importantly, Section 230 does not offer blanket immunity. It does not shield platforms from liability related to federal criminal law, intellectual property infringement, sex trafficking or where platforms codevelop unlawful content. At the same time, Section 230 allows platform companies to moderate content as they see fit, letting them block harmful or offensive content that is permitted by the First Amendment.

Some critics argue that the algorithms social media platforms use to feed content to users are a form of content creation and should be outside the scope of Section 230 immunity. In addition, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has signaled a more aggressive stance toward Big Tech, advocating for a rollback of Section 230’s protections to address what he perceives as biased content moderation and censorship.

What Section 230 does and how it came about.

Censorship and the moderation dilemma

Opponents warn that repealing Section 230 could lead to increased censorship, a flood of litigation and a chilling effect on innovation and free expression.

Section 230 grants complete immunity to platforms for third-party activities regardless of whether the challenged speech is unlawful, according to a February 2024 report from the Congressional Research Service. In contrast, immunity via the First Amendment requires an inquiry into whether the challenged speech is constitutionally protected.

Without immunity, platforms could be treated as publishers and held liable for defamatory, harmful or illegal content their users post. Platforms could adopt a more cautious approach, removing legally questionable material to avoid litigation. They could also block potentially controversial content, which could leave less space for voices of marginalized people.

MIT management professor Sinan Aral warned, “If you repeal Section 230, one of two things will happen. Either platforms will decide they don’t want to moderate anything, or platforms will moderate everything.” The overcautious approach, sometimes called “collateral censorship,” could lead platforms to remove a broader swath of speech, including lawful but controversial content, to protect against potential lawsuits. Yelp’s general counsel noted that without Section 230, platforms may feel forced to remove legitimate negative reviews, depriving users of critical information.

Corbin Barthold, a lawyer with the nonprofit advocacy organization TechFreedom, warned that some platforms might abandon content moderation to avoid liability for selective enforcement. This would result in more online spaces for misinformation and hate speech, he wrote. However, large platforms would likely not choose this route to avoid backlash from users and advertisers.

A legal minefield

Section 230(e) currently preempts most state laws that would hold platforms liable for user content. This preemption maintains a uniform legal standard at the federal level. Without it, the balance of power would shift, allowing states to regulate online platforms more aggressively.

Some states could pass laws imposing stricter content moderation standards, requiring platforms to remove certain types of content within defined time frames or mandating transparency in content moderation decisions. Conversely, some states may seek to limit moderation efforts to preserve free speech, creating conflicting obligations for platforms that operate nationally. Litigation outcomes could also become inconsistent as courts across different jurisdictions apply varying standards to determine platform liability.

The lack of uniformity would make it difficult for platforms to establish consistent content moderation practices, further complicating compliance efforts. The chilling effect on expression and innovation would be especially pronounced for new market entrants.

While major players such as Facebook and YouTube might be able to absorb the legal pressure, smaller competitors could be forced out of the market or rendered ineffective. Small or midsize businesses with a website could be targeted by frivolous lawsuits. The high cost of compliance could deter many from entering the market.

Reform without ruin

The nonprofit advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation warned, “The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230.” The law has been instrumental in fostering the growth of the internet by enabling platforms to operate without the constant threat of lawsuits over user-generated content. Section 230 also lets platforms organize and tailor user-generated content.

The potential repeal of Section 230 would fundamentally alter this legal landscape, reshaping how platforms operate, increasing their exposure to litigation and redefining the relationship between the government and online intermediaries.

This story was updated on Feb. 4, 2026, to include the 30th anniversary of the Communications Decency Act and recent efforts to repeal Section 230.The Conversation

Daryl Lim, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research and Innovation, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Details
Written by: Daryl Lim, Penn State

Man charged with killing wife with hammer set for preliminary hearing

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – A preliminary hearing has been scheduled for a Kelseyville man charged with killing his wife last month with a hammer.

Travis Ryan Bonson, 46, has been charged with first-degree murder for the death of 44-year-old Ayano Bonson, his wife of 22 years.

Lake County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Travis Bonson on the morning of Jan. 16 after receiving a call from him at his Single Spring Drive home. Bonson told authorities he had physically assaulted Ayano Bonson.

Deputies found Ayano Bonson in critical condition. She was transported to an out-of-county hospital for medical treatment. She died four days after the attack.

Senior Deputy District Attorney Nicholas Rotow, who is the prosecutor handling the case, confirmed to Lake County News that Travis Bonson used a hammer to kill his wife while she was in bed.

Based on the evidence, “I think it’s a reasonable conclusion, probably the only conclusion,” that Ayano Bonson was assaulted when she was asleep, Rotow said.

Bonson is a registered sex offender as the result of a 2012 felony conviction for committing lewd or lascivious acts on a child under age 14. Rotow said Bonson has not had any Lake County cases since completing his prior sex-related prison sentence. 

On Tuesday morning, Bonson was in Lake County Superior Court, where he entered a not guilty plea in the case before Judge J. David Markham.

He is scheduled to return to court for a preliminary hearing and bail review on March 19.

Bonson remains in custody in the Lake County Jail. He’s being held without bail.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, and on Bluesky, @erlarson.bsky.social. Find Lake County News on the following platforms: Facebook, @LakeCoNews; X, @LakeCoNews; Threads, @lakeconews, and on Bluesky, @lakeconews.bsky.social. 

Details
Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Water tank installation slows as well testing continues after Robin Lane sewer spill

CLEARLAKE, Calif. — Water tank installation has slowed while well testing continues for residents impacted by the Robin Lane sewer spill, according to a new city update.

Two additional water tanks were installed on Tuesday, including one through Lake County Social Services. The other was installed by the incident management team and funded by the $750,000 approved by the Board of Supervisors on Jan. 21.

Four water tanks were installed on Monday. 

As of Tuesday, a total of 31 water tanks had been hooked up for residents who rely on private wells and were impacted by the sewage spill caused by the rupture of a county-owned and operated 16-inch force main on Robin Lane.

But that represents only a fraction of the total homes relying on potentially contaminated private wells.

The spill began more than three weeks ago, on Sunday, Jan. 11, releasing nearly three million gallons of sewage over a roughly 38-hour period.

On Jan. 26, when the city of Clearlake and the Lake County Office of Emergency Services announced joint command to lead the recovery, the city reported that the number of impacted properties had grown from an initial estimate of 58 to “over 200.”

Clearlake City Manager Alan Flora told Lake County News on Tuesday that the most updated estimate is 164 houses, following a closer review that excluded vacant properties and parcels without residences.

All residents within the 550-acre impact zone remain under the public health advisory to avoid using water from their wells amid ongoing well testing and sanitization efforts. 

On Tuesday, an additional 21 water samples were collected, bringing the total to 462, up from 441 the previous day. These samples have been drawn from 151 sites, a figure that has remained unchanged since Jan. 29. 

The total number of wells sanitized remained unchanged from Monday at 65.

At last Wednesday’s town hall, officials said a well is deemed safe for use once it receives two negative test results — taken 24 hours apart — for E. coli and coliform following sanitization. 

That approach has been abandoned.

A third test could still return positive after two negative results, Flora said in a brief interview Tuesday. 

Following discussions with the hydrologist hired to study the aquifer and the spill’s impacts, the incident management team decided to revise its testing protocol, according to Flora.

Flora confirmed that the hydrologist will attend the fourth town hall in the series on the spill, scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 4, at Clearlake City Hall, 14050 Olympic Drive.

Email staff reporter Lingzi Chen at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Details
Written by: Lingzi Chen

Public Safety

Community

Community & Business