Why are they still talking about sex offenders on social media?
Several news stations have run stories about persons required to register as sex offenders being on social media. In light of Packingham v. North Carolina (the Supreme Court of the United States case that found a law making it a felony for a registered sex offender “to access a commercial social networking Web site” was unconstitutional), why are people still debating this?
While a court CAN impose social media or even internet restrictions as part of an individual’s probation, the government cannot restrict a person not on probation from social media or the internet. The highest court in the nation already decided this matter.
Facebook or most similar sites can, through their policies, ban people from using their sites but it is not illegal to use them. Unless someone is doing something illegal online, law enforcement has no say in the matter!
News reports like the one below, should be better informed of the law before they broadcast something to the public. The question they are asking has already been answered.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is it not written “A personal injury does not receive satisfaction from a future course of proceeding.”?
again is it not written “Wrong is wiped out by reconciliation.”?
again “Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit.”?
and again “No man is bound to have foreknowledge of a Divine or a future event.?
Having said that How can the “law being applied” not be a proceeding against man when it’s being applied post conviction for sake of “public safety”? Has any law ever prevented a crime?
Many people on the registry have made amends and reconciled with their the ones they harmed. (I do not refer to them as victims) There are many who even live in the same house with one another. having said that, what business is it of someone (society) who has nothing to do with the act itself? (busybodies)
Is it also not true man made the law and within him he has the same power that he created the law to renounce the law?
Also with respect to “divine or future event” this brings the impossible to the forefront with someone “making laws” (code) to prevent a “future or divine event”. Is this even possible?
Is man even subject to the “codes” written for “persons”? (“corporate body or corporation having legal rights,”)
let’s get rid of the idea of being a slave to someone just because they “said so”.
These social media laws are ridiculous. I am engaged to a registered sex offender and I even worry about putting a picture of the 2 of us on Facebook. His conviction is for for something ridiculous and he said she said. There were other witnesses that said he didn’t do it, but still got convicted in Utah. They need to change this for sure.
FB’s terms of use say a convicted SO should not access FB. But they do not restrict pictures posted by others.
On Twitter, certain convicted SOs (and their spouses) have thousands of followers and have never misused the site for exploitation or anything else.
Doesn’t rreally matter if we SO are allowed on social media. FB is feeding into the sex offender hysteria by allowing former victims, their families and passive aggressive vigilantes to kick us off easily and anytime they find our profile.
I concur with you. These “umbrella” site/app terms are unfair. They inaccurately imply a danger from a group of persons who already paid their dues to society via punishment. Many are also non-violent and non-recidivists (studies consistently show only 3-5% recidivism). They are not all “kiddy fiddlers” or even “rapists”.
More importantly, they are PEOPLE who want to turn their mistakes around and lead good and lawful lives. There are already so many difficulties with assimilating back into society for any convicted. But sex offenders are singled-out.
Here’s how Louisiana keeps its registered citizens off social media:
Revised Statutes 15:542.1. Notification of sex offenders and child predators
D.(1) Any person who is required to register pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, who is otherwise not prohibited from using a networking website, and who creates a profile or who uses the functionality of a networking website to contact or attempt to contact other networking website users shall include in his profile for the networking website an indication that he is a sex offender or child predator and shall include notice of the crime for which he was convicted, the jurisdiction of conviction, a description of his physical characteristics as required by this Section, and his residential address. The person shall ensure that this information is displayed in his profile for the networking website and that such information is visible to, or is able to be viewed by, other users and visitors of the networking website.
This is INSANE! Has there been any legal challenge to this?
As far as I know, it’s never been challenged, for the same reasons as always: lack of funding and lack of the willing ideal plaintiff.
Unfortunately, this is often the issue with unjust laws. Social outcasts don’t have the same resources to fight them.
It would help if these ridiculous laws were met with more scrutiny from the beginning!
What’s next? Requiring “Sex Offender” to be tattooed on your forehead? Prison rehabilitation guidelines talk about the importance of preparing incarcerated individuals for reintegration into society. Registry laws do just the opposite.
This should fall under the same conditions of freedom of speech, and classified as “forced speech” which is of course a violation of the 1st amendment. This same argument has been used in many counties across the US to prevent counties from forcing people to post yard signs in their own yard.
I agree. This does seem similar to the yard sign cases, especially with the US Supreme Court’s strong determination that internet is a First Amendment “protected space” (in Packingham).
*As to yard signs, a Federal Judge also deemed in October 2019 that a Georgia sheriff posting signs on registrants’ yards for Halloween 2018 was unconstitutional.
I cannot believe that we still deal with these over-reaching actions from officials who think they can do whatever.
“I cannot believe that we still deal with these over-reaching actions from officials who think they can do whatever.”
Like Larry says on the Registry Matters podcast (well worth the subscription!): “They’ll keep doing it until a judge tells them they can’t.”
Then they’ll enact new legislation to try to find a way around the judge’s ruling while the state attorney general appeals.
You can also say in a lot of cases, “They’ll keep doing it as long as people keep allowing them.” Because much of their illegal behavior can be stopped just by people refusing to allow it. If that is not enough, a judge can tell them.
A few examples of that are:
Asking for more information or personal details than is required by law.
“Compliance checks”.
Leaving notes at a person’s home or work and asking that the person contact them.
Asking a person where they have been or are going. The issue with that is that a person will tell them if it is required by law. Other than that, it should never be discussed.
What about business web sites asking for product info. And gov sites.
It is February post Super Bowl sweeps, folks. My local Sinclair station put up TWO back to back fearmongering articles about “sex offenders registering as homeless” and “hundreds of missing sex offenders”.
But social media still needs to be reported immediately in Florida as an internet identifier correct or is that overturned?
Yes, it still needs to be reported.