FAC Letter to Nextdoor.com
Unlike some social media platforms that prevent someone on the registry from creating an account, Nextdoor.com prevents anyone in the same household as a sex offender from creating an account. That includes, spouses, children, roommates and anyone else who happens to share the same address as a registrant.
In response to inquiries from members, Nextdoor claims that this policy is a condition of the public entities (law enforcement, municipalities, etc.) that they partner with.
FAC sent the following letter to Nextdoor.com, inviting them to reconsider their policy in light of the recent Packingham decision.
Great! “Nextdoor” turned me down even after I received an invitation from my HOA. I have lived in my home for over 14 years. Their restriction is total BS and makes their organization totally useless. Car ‘break-ins’ and burglaries affect RSO’s just the same as they affect any other home owner.
That points out the other nasty thing about sex offender registries. The entire family is made to suffer. As a registered offender, I have been reluctant to even ask a woman on a date. I don’t want her to share my stigma. How do you explain to a child why daddy can’t come to your school play?
Woo hoo! You go FAC!!! They will see you can not just dump on a group of people because they are unpopular!!!
If I had to take a stab at it, I believe their policy is simply that they don’t want registrants knowing goings-on in their own neigborhoods. For example, whether they are a topic of discussion.
Interesting. They are a California corporation. Doesn’t that violate California law regarding denial of “business services” even before you consider that they are claiming they are doing it on “orders” from government agencies and the Packingham implications?
Would be interesting to know what ACSOL thinks of this.
We always love coordinating with Janice. If she has the bandwidth, we can take this on together
If this moves into action on the legal forefront, I would like to participate as a Plaintiff, publicly. No John Doe status is asked of me. Please just reach out to me if you wish to move forward.
We will certainly keep it in mind, Nick. Thank you!
I also have been banned from their website. I wrote them back and they did respond. Let me know if anything legal happens I wouldn’t mind being part of that. I’m tired of being discriminated on.
The same thing happened to me. Dead silence
The reason there was dead silence is, if they give a reason, that can give you leverage in a lawsuit which they know so they say nothing giving you little ammo as to a reason. No reason in their mind equates to no discrimination.
Ditto!
Me aswell!!!! N I fortunately took all screenshots before they removed me from website
Awesome !!
Did any legal action ever happen? I’ve had an incident as well and I live in TN. I would be interested to know if there has been legal action taken.
Me too in colorado
This business seems to be in violation of California Penal Codes 290.46(2)(H), 290.46(4)(A) and 290.46(B):
(2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:
(H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.
(4) (A) Any use of information disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes other than those provided by paragraph (1) or in violation of paragraph (2) shall make the user liable for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury or a court sitting without a jury, not exceeding three times the amount of actual damage, and not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), and attorney s fees, exemplary damages, or a civil penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).
(B) Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of misuse of the information available via an Internet Web site established pursuant to this section in violation of paragraph (2), the Attorney General, any district attorney, or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the misuse is authorized to bring a civil action in the appropriate court requesting preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or group of persons responsible for the pattern or practice of misuse. The foregoing remedies shall be independent of any other remedies or procedures that may be available to an aggrieved party under other provisions of law, including Part 2 (commencing with Section 43) of Division 1 of the Civil Code.
Janice Bellucci has in the past asked to forward to her any evidence of banishment, especially in written form. This is especially true with jobs or housing in particular, but I sent this on to her due to the banishment from business establishment factor.
While my household was targeted, I was included in the banishment, in violation of California State Law.
great letter ! but of course, you know they will not respond