Does Putting Someone Online Make the Public Safer?
FLORIDA ACTION COMMITTEE
Does Putting Someone Online Make the Public Safer?
A Massachusetts ruling. A question that hits home.
By FAC Media | Opinion & Research
For our community, a public registry listing is personal. It can reach into a job search, a family relationship or a child’s life. Behind each listing is a person, and often a family trying to rebuild.
That is why decisions about public exposure can bring such strong feelings: fear, frustration and the painful question of whether years of change will ever count.
What evidence shows that putting this person’s information online makes people safer?
The court considered that question
On October 13, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld John Doe’s Level 2 classification and public internet listing. He had sought to end registration in 2022. The ruling went against him.
The court reviewed both his assessed risk and whether online publication would serve public safety. The publication decision required clear and convincing evidence, a demanding standard of proof.
The judges considered serious facts, including repeated abuse of a child, evidence of interest in another minor and problems following probation conditions.
They also acknowledged facts in his favor: a nine-year relationship and no identified evidence of sexual interest in minors since his release in 2014. Still, they upheld the finding that “Internet dissemination will realistically serve a public safety purpose.”
Why this hits home for FAC
This touches concerns at the heart of FAC’s federal challenge to Florida’s registry system: the weight of restrictions that keep growing, their effect on daily life and whether a system called civil regulation has become unconstitutional punishment.
Those are allegations our lawsuit asks the court to decide. This Massachusetts case is separate and does not decide FAC’s claims or change Florida law.
But the human concern is familiar. When a person asks for review, how much do stability, time and change matter? What evidence supports continued public exposure? And who considers the burden carried by family members who committed no crime?
FAC has explored how registry enforcement affects families. For people living with those burdens, these questions are about everyday life.
Children deserve protection. Survivors deserve support. Families deserve policies that can show how they make the public safer.
Recognizing harm does not mean we must stop asking whether a policy works. We can take child safety seriously while questioning public exposure and its lasting costs.
For those who read this decision and feel discouraged, your questions still matter. A loss in one case does not settle every person’s future or answer every challenge to the registry.
Sources and scope of the ruling
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 285142 v. Sex Offender Registry Board, Massachusetts Appeals Court, No. 24-P-1066, October 13, 2026. The linked page reproduces the opinion.
This was a Rule 23.0 summary decision. It may be cited for persuasive value but is not binding precedent. See the court’s explanation of Rule 23.0 decisions.
For FAC’s separate challenge and linked filings, visit the dedicated litigation page. This article is commentary, not advice about an individual case.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I dont see it, I only see it putting more and more barriers in my way. Ive been struggling to find a better job to get myself back on track and do far im 0 for 5. 4 of them ghosted me before I even got far enough in to sign any documents for a background check. One of them was for an internship position through college and I was the only person to put in for it. Got ghosted and they reposted the position 2 weeks later.
Here is the metric we never see, and I don’t think we ever will- how many new crimes have been solved using the registry? We give DNA, fingerprints, addresses, license plates, work places, home addresses, and I would love to know how many cases have been solved or even assisted by the registry? The reason we won’t ever get this number? Because if they told you it was zero then they would have no more reason to keep the charade up…
Here is the question. What is the absolute percentage of actually running into a person forced to register on the list in your city and interacting with them? Or, the person forced to register will come into contact with your child and harm them. The percentage is about as high as you running into a movie star or being invited to the Oscars. Very, very, very low. So the list really does nothing. Until the general public and politicians wrap their brains around this the net will still be cast. I would rather see a push towards individual assessment of various criteria that is based upon real results such as community volunteerism, participation in therapy, employment, follow through with registry requirements, family and or friend/spiritual support, letters of recommendation, etc. it never ceases to amaze all the craziness happening in the world and way more focus by legislation is focused on creating harsher and harsher laws for a group of individuals that have a higher possibility of rehabilitation.
Non-public registration fails to perform the most non-negotiable and American public interests: heaping shame and retribution on someone in a way that a politician can take credit for. For that reason alone, they’ll never let it go.
The only “evidence” for any of the treatment of rso’s is political feels. Putting someone’s details on a searchable database does absolutely nothing more than make people feel better because that’s the house to avoid at Halloween. Or that’s the guy I saw online. Or even worse, I know where one lives, so let’s send a message. That’s all it does. The registry doesn’t save anyone from any harm because people are put on the registry only AFTER they’ve been accused of something true or untrue.