Instagram now bans registered sex offenders.
On April 19, 2018, Facebook owned Instagram, revised it’s Terms of Use.
The new version replaces the prior version, which had been in place since 2013, can be found here: http://help.instagram.com/581066165581870?helpref=page_content
Sadly, included in this months change is a ban on anyone registered as a sex offender. The restriction did not appear in the prior version.
A comprehensive online news search revealed no issues with sex offenders using the platform in the past.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am fortunate that I do not have time to mess with Instagram. By kicking off RSO’s it give more space for drug dealers to do their business. As long as I have e-mail I couldn’t care less about these so-called social networks.
Why is this even an issue? The U.s Supreme Court saids sex offenders can use all social media as long as they are following the law.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaheilweil1/2017/06/20/supreme-court-says-sex-offenders-cant-be-banned-from-social-media/amp/
Why is Mike Tyson still allowed to have a “vetted” Instagram??
Great question
This is a very troubling issue…I’ve been out of prison for 2 years now. I started my own business selling my artwork. Granted most of my sales are from local festivals, I find numerous vendors get leads and sales from Facebook and at least exposure through Instagram. I lose out on this opportunity and potential business lead outlet. I feel that I’m trying to change my life for the better only to get more road blocks.
I am interested in doing the same w my art. Any tips?
I was on Instagram for several years and last month I got booted , not sure I resigned up and booted again ,funny thing is now they are sending me emails to please come back ,screw them
Great question. I wonder if the path to addressing this issue should begin with a certified letter or letter from a lawyer to FB and other social media companies asking them to change their policy to reflect the Packingham ruling so they are compliance with the law?
It certainly couldn’t hurt.
Social media still have the right to ban RSO’s. Packingham simply stated that the state can’t have a statute banning them. Perhaps the court’s observation that social media run a sort of “public square” could help in a future case. An RSO ban from social media constitutes security theater that is ineffective at preventing exploitation.
Just ran across this as I am searching for info on my rights as a tier 1 registered offender. I’ve been on the registry for 8 years, and off supervised release for 2 months. I’ve discovered that I’m on the public registry, which I’m not supposed to be as a tier 1. Also, I’d like to use social media to try to rebuild my life and find new work. Is there anyone who can point me towards information or recourses. I’m kinda alone in this and feeling a bit overwhelmed and lost.
I’m sure some will find this interesting, the terms of use for Facebook and Instagram do not require you to be a registered sex offender in order to ban you, they specifically state that they ban convicted sex offenders” not registered sex offenders, so that would also include all level 1 offenders who have been convicted but not required to register. Furthermore going on right now is a public debate on several social media sites as well as news articles have been popping up in regards to Daniel Hernandez AKA Tekashi6ix9ine as he was convicted of child sex crimes relating to his 2015 arrest for using a 13 year old girl in sexual performances in no less than 4 videos all of which he uploaded to his Instagram account, the judge ruled that he would not have to register as a sex offender but the convictions remain on his record. Instagram and Facebook have been made aware of this from many users as well as a new site but they refuse to ban him from their platform, now I wonder why that is? I can tell you why, it is because they do not care 1 bit about the conviction all they care about is the address of anew that is pouring in from this controversial rapper being on their platform. if anyone here ends up taking anything to court I hope you can find this as potent ammunition for your cause. Good luck!
Since Facebook is located in California, a suit should be brought using California law under Penal Code 290.46(g)(2) which makes it illegal to use the registry information to deny access to a public business. I live in CA and there doesn’t seem to be anyone that knows about this law or uses it against these actions. As to the fact law enforcement take your internet identifiers and report them to places like Facebook, since they know Facebook will ban you (I know since I’ve seen this happen), this conduct by law enforcement is illegal under Packingham v. North Carolina. The problem is finding civil rights attorneys, resources, and the money to accomplish these suits.
With regards to the ban., it takes no money or time to chalenge facebook in district or civil court as Cals law and packingham both demonstrate a violation of law on part of facebook…
In fact., i intend to chalenge Facebook on March 23rd 2019….
How do you mean no time or money?
At minimum, filing fees, service of process, courthouse parking.
At minimum someone needs to research, draft and file the complaint.
There is nothing in Packingham to suggest that Facebook is violating the law. Packingham was about states prohibiting registrants’ Facebook use via statute. It did not require Facebook to provide access to anyone.
I would support a credible challenge, but…
What jurisdiction are you filing in? Are you looking for others to join as plaintiffs?
Wouldn’t our fight be better served by not challenging each restriction and instead lump them all up and launch a substantive due process challenge against being put on a registry that leads to all of these resteictions of liberty?
Like if there was a way to revisit doe v Alaska
Sure, but your suit would still need to identify each restriction and argue that specific right the gov’t is restricting is a protected constitutional right. Then strict scrutiny would apply instead of rational basis and you may get a court to strike it down. This is the exact way and strongest way for many suits have been brought and it seems only a very few have succeeded in winning. I think these types of suits need to be brought in every jurisdiction. The problem is resources. One needs good attorneys and money to pay for those attorneys. There seem to be very few civil rights attorneys willing to take on cases pro bono…I know, I have tried. So yes, challenge all of the restrictions.
Back to the facebook issue, Packingham could be applied to registering police departments for sending the information to facebook in order to ban you, they are in essence de facto banning you from facebook/instagram. They do this by either making a report directly to facebook if they know you have a profile, which police love to try to find in my experience, or under the Federal SORNA. SORNA allows the federal government to give social media companies, such as Facebook, access to all registry data sent to them from every state on the NCIC/NSOR to facebook itself and it’s to be used to cross reference names, birthdates, etc in order to ban profiles. Because Packingham can not apply to Facebook, it is why I mentioned using the CA penal code to bring suit for violating that statute which offers damages. If enough people bring suit and costs them enough money in CA, they may change their polices on banning sex offenders from using Facebook/Instagram.
I forgot to mention. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins as a US Supreme Court case and a few other CA Supreme Court cases have defined malls and private property as protected spaces for free speech rights in California. Packingham has defined the internet and social media sites are areas of free speech. Therefore, in applying Pruneyard in conjunction with Packingham, the operators of facebook, much like the operators of malls and stores, could not ban people from contributing free speech. AKA, facebook could not ban sex offenders from using the forum.
How did your challenge turn out?
Need help fighting this? I’m in.
Find us an attorney willing to take the case.
If the ACLU won’t take the case, then good luck finding one!
I think it’s great news every time another restriction or banning applies to all on the “sex offender” list.
Why?
Because it provides more evidence to wipe out the entire registry based on a “Substantive Due Process” challenge.
Are there individuals that should be banned from social media or traveling internationally because they actually are a danger? Sure there are. The problem is, that status of being dangerous in those circumstances hasn’t been determined as part of the fair sentencing portion of a trial, but arbitrarily by legislature and for an arbitrary duration unrelated to individual circumstances.
The legislation has also violated separation of powers by taking the Judicial power of “punish, rehabilitate, and protect the people” away from the judiciary for no good reason, and interfered with it. The legislation is supposed to create laws that apply to all, and when violated, the judiciary does their role. The legislation has created a scheme to unconstitutionally bypass the judicial role.
The 3 branches are supposed to be equal, yet the legislature has set rules for the judiciary that punishment must fit the crime and tailored to the individual circumstances without blanket restrictions based on a particular crime. Funny how the legislature has no such restrictions on itself in creating sex offender laws. They have turned the judiciary into mere administrative clerks for their agendas.
I am not sure why this hasn’t been properly challenged, other than no lawyer actually wants to be the one blamed for taking down the registry, and no “elected” state judge would ever let that happen either. Unless this gets to SCOTUS somehow, nothing will ever change.