Sixth Circuit reinstates Kentucky ban on anonymous social media use by sex offenders
A proposed class of convicted sex offenders failed to meet the high bar required for broad injunctive relief when it made a facial challenge to a Kentucky law that bans their anonymous use of social media, according to a ruling Monday from the Sixth Circuit.
A panel of the appeals court vacated a preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Judge Greg Stivers.
An anonymous plaintiff filed suit on behalf of a class shortly after Kentucky Democratic Governor Andy Beshear signed Senate Bill 249 into law and required all individuals convicted of a sex crime involving a minor to use their full legal names on any social media site. In its unanimous decision, the court determined social media sites have the editorial discretion to block or “de-boost” certain content and then vacated injunctions before remanding the cases for further analysis.
The Office of the Kentucky Attorney General said it is reviewing the decision.
Guy Hamilton-Smith, attorney for plaintiff John Doe, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
You can read the opinion here: Doe v Burlew – KY social media
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Whether you’re on the registry or not, don’t give social media sites any of your real information. Fake name, birth date, location, etc. Turn off their location permission. Don’t post real photos of yourself that could be used by facial recognition algorithms.
To simplify, the Court merely stating that this case would likely fail on a FACIAL challenge, meaning a challenge to the law as it applies to everyone.
But if you read the ruling (it isn’t a long opinion), they still hold out that an AS-APPLIED challenge would have a far greater chance of winning.
*****
As a Registrant that uses his real name on social media when possible, I have ample evidence of PUBLIC OFFICIALS, not just some rando on the Internet, but actual people in positions of power, weaponize the registry against me in an attempt to silence anti-registry activism.
I hate how courts demand overwhelming evdence when we challenge obviously bad rulings yet the state doesn’t have to do much to prove their arguments.
hmm.. I sense a constitutional challenge should be in play here.
I believe the case is a constitutional challenge…