Facebook updated its community standards to allow for users to call for “high-severity violence” against sexual offenders, including death threats.
In its ” Do not post” section on its website, Facebook changed its standards in a July update to allow an exception to its “Violence and Incitement” standard for individuals “described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses, wherein criminal/predator status has been established by media reports, market knowledge of news event, etc.”
The exception allows users to make: “Threats that could lead to death” against alleged violent and sexual offenders. Facebook does not require for the threats to be against persons who have been convicted under criminal law.
UPDATED: IT LOOKS LIKE FACEBOOK JUST DELETED THE OFFENSIVE POLICY UNDOUBTEDLY SOMEONE ALERTED THEM WE ARE STILL ON TOP OF THIS
This is the major part of the problem with SORNA rehabilitation—for lack of a better word: anyone can take advantage of a scenario that is open-game for Senators, police, lobbyist and people of power in general (to include dramatists like John Walsh). So the real stories (truths of burden) get circumvented by the population because it is so easy to use sex in any vocabulary to incite social triggers that “no one in their right mind” could disagree with.
I am hoping that FAC is going to use this as proof that the Registry is punishment in one of their lawsuits, That small print at the bottom of the flyers no longer matter to facebook The part that anyone uses this Information to harass etc….
Under Florida Statute 836.05, anyone who makes a verbal or written malicious threat that suggests an injury to the person, property or reputation of another will be guilty of a felony in the second degree.
Section 836.10 of the Florida statute speaks specifically to written death threats. If a person writes and sends, or is somehow involved in the transmission of, this sort of threat, they will be considered guilty of the crime. These threats can be sent via written letter or electronic communication, and the intent to kill or do bodily injury may be to the letter’s recipient or to a member of their family. In all of these scenarios, the act will be considered a felony in the second degree.
It looks to me that Facebook REMOVED, not added, the exception, because the lines through the sentences meant (strikethrough) means the language was removed.
The current version does not contain that exception.
Of course, this also means that Facebook has had that exception until recently, and who knows for how long. This explains why so many vigilante groups like No Peace For Predators is allowed to proliferate on Facebook.
when FB just recently got called out on it publicly in a newspaper they quickly changed it
Doesnt FB ban so’s from having accounts and if they find out they will cancel the account, so if someone makes death threats and we report them FB will just cancel our accounts.
The problem with this action is that most people do not know what a sex offender can mean. In this time of social media, a minor (under 18) can send a pornigraphic picture to an adult male (over 18) and he can be charged as SO. May have never even met her let alone touched her. Another scenario, a minor girl hooks up with a boy telling him she’s over age. Then gets pissed if he doesn’t do what she wants him to and calls the police. All it takes is her word for him to be a sex offender for the rest of his life. People just need to realize how often and easily this happens.
Exactly Jean……unfortunately when “sex offender” is read or heard their minds conjure up the MOST horrific scene, most just do not know there are different scenarios that are being called “sex offender”. Or that many are not actually “guilty” of anything…..we have not progressed very far from the middle ages, Salem Witch Trials come to mind…Puritans……
Sex stings is the most illegal use of creating sex offenders as not only is there no one underage but no one is ever met to create an offense. This is the most illegal use of the law to create sex offenders.
Sidney
I agree completely. Recently more laws have been enacted to make police more accountable for their actions like wearing cameras. Where is this same accountability to law makers. They destroy people’s lives by labeling them sex offenders when that is a lie . To be a sex offender there has to be someone they offended. They try to get around it by giving it numbers , like class 1, 2,3 or 4. That is insanity. Either it’s a sex offense or not . Child sexual abuse has been defined as when someone uses a child to satisfy his or her own sexual desires. It could include sexual intercourse ,oral or anal sex, fondling of genitalia, breasts . Or buttocks, or other perverted acts. A victim is someone who was sexually abused.
When no one was abused there can be no sex offense crimes. Where is the accountability to prosecutors and judges. Are they not accountable to follow their own definitions of laws.
Where are the statistics showing how many on the registry are really sex offenders or have even committed a sex offense.by their own definition.
I think Facebook should be charged with aiding and abetting violence. Let Zuckerberg get hit with a class action suit.
Being a dick shouldn’t make you rich.
Excellent job Face Book!! You just proved Judge Richard Matsch’s ruling regarding SO registration laws in Colorado.
Matsch found that Colorado’s registration act poses a “serious threat of retaliation, violence, ostracism, shaming, and other unfair and irrational treatment from the public” for sex offenders and their families.
Terms of use may now allow death threats, but law does not. A death threat can still be investigated by authorities. Facebook will now allow people to incriminate themselves out in the open.
I already hear the cynic saying, “you really think law enforcement will try to prevent harm to a sex offender”? But they follow up on threats to various ppl at various times, and now Facebook provides detectives with an additional tool.
Many people take the contents of places like Facebook as gospel and would most likely think that if it is a standard on Facebook, then it would be in line with the law everywhere else – at times without even questioning if its legal or constitutional for that matter. Then it leads to thoughts like, threats and violence against a group would be ok in the real world, because we say it’s ok here on the internet.
So let me get this straight. Someone can post death threats about us on FB but we can’t read it or respond to it to take measures to protect ourselves and our families. This is a brand new kind of stupid. If this is allowed to stand I see a registrant or a registrants family member being injured or worse and a big fat law suit coming FB’s way if it’s found out that they had prior knowledge
Attempting to “reason” with business or government via a persuasive argument accomplishes nothing. The only thing that these entities will respond to is a threat of monetary loss subsequent to a judgement against them – that is all. All of the wishing and hoping that they will “do the right thing” is nothing more than a waste of energy. Winning in court is our only way to effect change and the more we win the faster things will change across the country. My position on those who would harm RC has not changed nor should it for anyone else, it will not be tolerated. Their logic will one day cost them much more than they expected and no one will be to blame but them. As far as FB or any person of authority who advocated harm to our families my wish is that if our families are not safe then their families do not deserve to be safe either. Support FAC, keep informed on the changing legislation, and be prepared to make those who wish to do us harm suffer unanticipated consequences.
Be vigilant!
Yes and since we are not allowed to own a gun , we cannot even defend ourselves in our own homes. That is why I have a huge mean satan dog that is 100% legal.
Shouldn’t it stand to reason that Facebook should then allow registrants on their platform to respond to such threats?
What if someone publicly accuses Mark Zuckerberg of a sex crime. Such an accusation would certainly go viral. Wouldn’t he then be banned from his own platform by its rules, whether convicted or not?
Maybe FAC and other advocates should push the DOJ to investigate Facebook for allowing terroristic threats to be made on its platform. Terroristic threats via the internet is a matter of federal jurisdiction. Allowing people to threaten the lives of any other group of people would constitute federal crimes.
@ Bill:
Excellent point. Kicking myself for not thinking of it myself.
Thanks for the warning. There first shot better be a good one. I’m perfectly capable of ripping someone’s arm off and wrapping it around there neck. Put that on your front page Facebook.
How is this legal?
I guess if it is against an SO anything goes. We can’t be on Facebook to communicate with our families, but others are allowed to threaten violence and get away with it. Where is the justice in that.