In Moe v. SORB, 467 Mass. 598 (March 26, 2014), the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that the retroactive application of new Massachusetts amendments, which require internet publication of Level 2 sex offenders, to Level 2 offenders who were classified before the new amendments were passed, is unconstitutional. Part of the SJC's reasoning was that SORB had already concluded that Level 2 offenders were not so dangerous such that their information had to be on the internet.

Before these amendments, only Level 3 offenders were subject to such wide publication of their personal information. Inevitably, there will come a due process challenge to applying internet publication to Level 2 offenders who were classified after these amendments passed. With this new law, there is now no principled distinction between Level 2 and Level 3 offenders because they are *all* now exposed on the internet despite their different levels of risk. How is this law then fair or sensible?