Please Comment on Facebook Posts

FAC has received a lot of media attention this week because of our lawsuit challenging Florida’s sex offender registry. Some of that coverage has been in mainstream media, and some has been across social media.

The mainstream media coverage has been professional, factual, and largely neutral. The comments underneath those stories and on social media, however, have been a different story. We’ve seen plenty of comments along the lines of, “They should be put in the woodchipper.”

Setting aside the obvious fact that advocating that anyone be put through a woodchipper is completely inappropriate, these comments actually demonstrate something important about what this lawsuit is about. If people took a few minutes to actually read our complaint, they would discover that the people affected by Florida’s registry are not all the same. The complaint gives examples of some plaintiffs that were convicted of consensual sexual relationships between teenagers. Others were convicted of offenses that were non-violent, non-contact, and involved no direct victim. And every one of the plaintiffs who would be affected by the decision in our case has already served their sentence and been released into the community.

We aren’t litigating the underlying criminal offenses. The question now is what government may constitutionally do to people after they have completed their sentences and returned to their communities.

There is no evidence that forcing people into homelessness makes communities safer. There is no evidence that making someone sleep outdoors, separating them from housing and family, or permanently branding them as dangerous prevents recidivism. And here’s the irony: When people comment on our lawsuit by demanding banishment, homelessness, permanent punishment, or even a “woodchipper,” they are making our constitutional argument for us. The comments prove our point!

Florida tells courts that its registry is a civil, regulatory, non-punitive scheme. Yet these comments reveal exactly how it functions in practice: as a mechanism for continuing punishment long after a criminal sentence has ended. Our lawsuit is precisely about that distinction.

We know that many people required to register cannot participate in Facebook discussions themselves (being banned from from social media – the modern public square – is ironically another form of banishment). That’s why we’re asking parents, spouses, children, family members, friends, and supporters who can participate to do so. If you see comments claiming that everyone on the registry is a violent predator, that everyone deserves to be homeless, or that challenging these laws somehow means supporting sexual abuse, take a moment to respond with facts.

You don’t have to argue. You don’t have to insult anyone. Just point people toward the actual facts and, most importantly, encourage them to read the complaint before passing judgment. The people in this lawsuit have already been punished for their crimes. The question before the court is whether the government can continue punishing them indefinitely after that punishment is over. That’s what this case is about.

Here’s an example of such comments: https://www.facebook.com/jweinsierWPLG/videos/now-what-sex-offenders-and-sexual-predators-removed-but-problem-not-solved-what-/2155327628719057/