the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the probable benefits and costs of additional protections. The government’s principal interest in mandating sex offender registration is to protect the public, particularly children, from sex offenders. Even though Wisconsin’s registration statute, like most conviction-based schemes, paints with an extremely broad brush, it undeniably serves a legitimate interest in public safety. The resulting liberty restrictions are not so great as incarceration or even probation or supervised release. Registration may limit where an offender can live or what employment he may hold, but the collateral consequences are not so devastating as to deprive registrants of a home or a job. Cf. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 264, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) (<HOLDING>). Murphy’s interest here is certainly important
holding that deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available and explaining that state tort actions are meaningful postdeprivation remedies holding that where a party has the means to discover the true nature of the transaction by the exercise of ordinary intelligence and fails to make use of those means he cannot claim justifiable reliance on defendants misrepresentations  holding that applicants for welfare benefits had a property interest or legitimate claim of entitlement and were entitled to due process to protect that interest holding that the phrase provided by law means prescribed or provided by statute holding that meaningful predeprivation process was necessary  and that postdeprivation remedies alone were insufficient  because the private interest at issue welfare benefits provided the means to obtain essential food clothing housing and medical care and termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits