I presume they can, as a private company has the right to refuse service to anyone. But I doubt Facebook is very diligent in weeding out registrants and false name accounts. They can’t show damages, so searching for registrants and accounts violating their terms is too much trouble and cost for no return. Reasonably sure they rely on the government to send them lists of accounts to delete.

Disagree that anyone with heinous intentions will use a fake Facebook account. Facebook won’t have anything to do with whatever that person intends.

Also, yes, few people buy into the public safety thing these days. Unfortunately, most of those few are legislators.

And we love you Mary Sue!

Agree that Packingham is helpful in establishing that social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are the modern day “public squares”

In Packingham, the decision dictated what the government (a public actor) cannot do, but didn’t touch on what private actors can or can’t do.

I don’t believe that anyone buys into the “public safety” thing anymore either. As 95% of sexual assaults are committed by someone NOT on the registry and more than 80% of offenders known to their victims, nobody actually believes that sex offenders are hiding in bushes (literal or virtual) waiting to attack. Reality is; if someone is intent on doing something heinous, they will use an un-registered account in a fake name. It’s the premise that bank robbers use in wearing disguises.

it’s about discrimination and whether that exclusion violates the First Amendment. Packingham said THE GOVERNMENT cant restrict access. This case can determine whether a private company can restrict.

No, but the opinion lists every reason in the world to consider Facebook a public forum. Plus, nearly every government office at all levels have a Facebook page.

Basically, I’m saying that Facebook has a right to exclude registrants if they choose. But at the same time, registrants (at least those not under supervision) should not be legally obligated to disclose their status to Facebook subject to criminal penalty. Civil liability should remain, of course, but I think Facebook would have a hard time showing they endure significant losses if they discover a registrant had an account and didn’t disclose his status. Betting there are already a ton of those. Kicking them off doesn’t increase their traffic any more than leaving them there will decrease it.

Packingham justices considered it a public forum insofar as the legislature cannot outlaw you from going there. They did not take up the question here of whether facebook can be COMPELLED to grant you access. The constitutionality of internet identifiers is, of course, working its way through the courts (such as FAC’s recent internet identifiers lawsuit).

I agree that it’s rare that we ever hear of Facebook being used to commit a sex crime. And Facebook does not ban those having a record of, say, fraud, identity theft, or espionage.

The main problem with the “save one child” mentality, in my view, is that it is difficult to write a law that would save one child without hurting another child, such as the child of a registrant or other person punished under such a law.

With near impunity, prisons for profit notoriously ban publications such as Prison Legal News, which violates the First Amendment rights of not only the publisher but also the inmate. So if SCOTUS rules private entities can be held liable, I am willing to bet more suits will be filed against private prisons and their employees for such violations.

Facebook was not even a party to Packingham.

I’ve often wondered about the constitutionality of state laws that either requires the registration of internet identifiers or that require one advertise himself as a registrant on all profiles, particularly for those whose sentences are complete. I would think it violates free speech for the government to force or compel someone to say what the government wants, either in public or private. Not being forced to tow the government line is essentially what free speech is all about. I’m not aware of any other law that criminalizes lying or concealing facts between two private parties. There are civil liabilities of course, but not criminal ones.

Besides, when you take out the federal and state entrapment stings, how many sex offenses have been committed where Facebook played any role at all? Only 2 or 3, as far as I know, and I don’t think any of them were registrants at the time of offense. Considering there are at least 2 BILLION Facebook users, that seems pretty negligible.

To the “if it saves one child” crowd – surrender every dollar you have, every piece of property you own, and every license and certification in your possession to “save one child.” Maybe then you’ll have an interest in effectiveness of the laws and rules based on the registry.