Correct

Right, same as Disney World. We are legally allowed to go there, but Disney, as owner of the property, has a policy to have us escorted off their property and trespassed if we seek admittance. Their property, their rules.

I think there might be confusion in that courts have ruled that STATES cannot restrict access to social media sites (most states allow, some don’t).

Anti-Discrimination laws generally cover a “protected class”, such as race, religion, sexual orientation… but “sex offender” is not a protected class. Companies can pretty much chose to include or exclude whoever they like as long as the basis is not discrimination of a protected class.

There have been some opinions (not rulings, but comments in opinions) that compared Facebook to the new “town square” where people go to meet and communicate. Where that will lead in a potential lawsuit against Facebook (to my knowledge registered citizens have not sued facebook) is to be determined.

Again, if there’s a case where FB was told they cannot exclude registrants, I’d love to see it. To my knowledge and belief it doesn’t exist.

yeah, posted this in the wrong spot….supposed to be a reply to the bottom post

You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender.

Bill – can you please find that case? I’d like to look into this and share it with our members if it is, in fact, true.

Karen, it was a while back that Facebook had been told by a high court (I don’t recall the exact details) but that since FB became a publicly traded company, they cannot discriminate, nor prevent a sex offender from being on FB. It is no different than telling a company like DirecTv that they can’t refuse to provide service to “resident A” because they were a drug dealer.

Fight for the victims of ex-facto punishment . While not allowing the pursuit of happiness, peace, or prosperity