LA: “Operation Restricted Domain”: When Having a Social Media Account Becomes the Crime
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill is touting “Operation Restricted Domain” as a major success after 60 registered citizens were arrested in the Baton Rouge area. But look closely at what authorities themselves described: many of the alleged violations involved registrants simply being present on social media platforms.
According to the Attorney General’s office, investigators specifically tracked registrants using apps like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, X, TikTok, Discord, Roblox, and Fortnite. Officials even released statistics bragging about how many times each platform was found during the investigation — Facebook alone accounting for 33 instances.
Notice what is missing from much of the reporting: allegations of new contact offenses, hands-on crimes, or exploitation tied to most of these arrests. Instead, the centerpiece appears to be technical registration and internet-use violations, with only a couple actual crimes (above merely having the account) sprinkled in.
This is the continuing expansion of registry laws into modern life. Social media is now essential for employment, communication, family contact, business promotion, news, and everyday participation in society. Yet states continue criminalizing online existence itself for people on the registry. Authorities framed the operation as protecting children from predators “on apps,” but the statistics they highlighted mostly show registrants having accounts or online activity.
When “public safety” operations increasingly revolve around policing Facebook accounts, Instagram profiles, or gaming platforms instead of actual predatory conduct, lawmakers should ask whether these laws are preventing crime — or simply manufacturing new crimes out of ordinary behavior.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Do they not have a way to register internet identifiers?
In Florida you provide all social media platforms when you register as offender/predator and its monitored so this makes no sense. That’s the entire reason for doing it this way is to keep an eye on what were doing online. Its illegal if you have social media accounts and they aren’t registered with the sheriff’s department or FDLE. Its just another part of how Fl does things
” lawmakers should ask whether these laws are preventing crime — or simply manufacturing new crimes out of ordinary behavior.”….. well duh.. of course they are manufacturing new crime.. prisons wont fill themselves and those prisons have record breaking profits to earn..
National coverage of this operation made my blood boil:
https://www.newsweek.com/sex-offenders-arrested-louisiana-operation-restricted-domain-liz-murrill-11966427
Our children are in big trouble if this is our idea of protecting them. Talk about security theater!
If any legislator thinks about trying this in our state, then they and their colleagues are sure to hear from us.
Hasn’t LA heard of Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98? I thought that settled the issue.
Decision Date:
June 19, 2017
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the North Carolina statute was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
Reasoning:
The Court emphasized that social media serves as a crucial platform for communication and expression, and the law imposed an excessive restriction on lawful speech.
Louisiana did not violate Packingham. They instead passed a legal loophole to get around it.
The news reporter doesn’t understand this, but their source (the D.A.) probably does.
What is the legal Loophole Jacob? I didn’t see it mentioned in the report.
This country is morally bankrupt and will soon be fiscally bankrupt, if this is how they prioritize law enforcement funds.
Oh, wow, I stand corrected.
Louisiana law previously was that a social media account controlled by a registrant, must disclose the user’s registrant status in its profile.
But I see now that the law has become slightly worse than that— no social media for anyone convicted of certain sex crimes.
Does that violate Packingham? Hard to say for sure, because it appears just a tiny bit more narrowly tailored than Packingham, which I recall as being more categorical. Someone just needs to challenge it. (I don’t recall anyone challenging the previous law).
Had this law been proposed in Florida, there would have been an all-hands-on-deck call to action among FAC members.
Florida hasn’t tried to pass a social media ban for registrants. The ban on general internet access as a condition of probation, yes and that’s been upheld, but not after.
No state can pass a social media ban. North Carolina tried and got beat down by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled 9-0 in Packingham v. North Carolina (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf) that such bans are patently unconstitutional.
So, it’s not clear what the actual “crimes” were here. I read the original press release by the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office and the “crimes” were not specified. I am assuming they are a combination of probation violations (it is legal to prohibit internet or social media access as a condition of probation) and failure to register the social media accounts.
The LA AG is betting these arrested folks won’t have the resources to challenge the arrests in court because no one will step and assist them en masse which is what needs to happen.
Louisiana passed a social media ban and arrested people for violating it.
But Louisiana’s ban appears (slightly) more narrowly tailored than the one that was at issue in Packingham.
So it will be presumed constitutional until someone successfully challenges it.
I also found the law (it’s Louisiana Revised Statute § 91.5. “Unlawful use of a social networking website”). This law is a clear and blatant violation of Packingham. In fact, the act that Mr. Packingham was originally arrested for in NC was a post on Facebook, and many of these folks in Louisiana were arrested for using Facebook. The fact that Louisiana “only” makes it a crime for registrants with minor victims to access social networking websites does not overcome the rationale expressed by SCOTUS in Packingham. In fact, the North Carolina law that SCOTUS struck down even required that the social networking website allow minors to access the website, which RS § 91.5 does not include as an element. I’m not aware of any federal circuit courts of appeal that have found such bans permissible under Packingham. If I’m wrong, someone please correct me.
In Florida, we have a different situation because there has already been a federal district court essentially ruling that registrants have a constitutional right to access social media and other internet accounts (the state had tried to require us to register all websites we visit–that was found unconstitutional) and that the most the state can do is require registering them under fairly narrow conditions.
I am hopeful that you are right.
Did they use their own names?
Social isolation is confinement and excessive over correction. Correctional facilities are for timed out forgiveness and paying your dues so that once the timed served is timed out you can live your life.