ACSOL’s Conference Calls

June 14 Call uploaded – Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings

Q3: 7/15 in Berkeley [details]

General News

EFF to Supreme Court: Strike Social Media Ban for Sex Offenders

Yesterday, EFF and its allies Public Knowledge and the Center for Democracy & Technology filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down under the First Amendment a North Carolina law that bans “registered sex offenders” (RSOs) from using all Internet social media. This law sweeps far too broadly. Social media are one of the most important communication channels ever created. People banned from social media are greatly handicapped in their ability to participate in the political, religious, and economic life of our nation. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. DavidH

    Great! I dont blame the folks in NC for wanting to defend their constitutional rights; However, should they lose at the SC level then every state will be jumping all over this, California’s legal victory will have been for not!

  2. Joe123

    Unfortunately, there are too many mentally sick human beings ruling in the courts, rulings that are beyond Un-American, out-right dangerous and oppressive.

    Is the USA turning into Iran or Saudi Arabia?

    The amount of absolute Hatred and Stupidity some judges possess that allows them to think it is OK to punish people for the rest of their lives while LYING and saying that it’s not blatant punishment. Absolutely disgusting. I really question why I moved to this country. It’s going to hell at this rate. Hopefully Janice and the efforts of EFF/ACLU prevail. Otherwise, the rest of the population will eventually suffer as well. We MUST make these judges’s names public and publicly SHAME these in-humane characters that uphold these insane, archaic, ‘banishment’ laws.

  3. Matt Duhamel

    Does anyone have more information on this as quoted by this article?

    “In Wisconsin, for example, all RSOs must wear electronic shackles 24/7 for the rest of their lives. This includes RSOs who have successfully completed their sentences and terms of supervised release. ”

    Is this true? I can’t find any information online.

    Thank you.

  4. Cool CA RC

    Can they just sue Facebook ?

    • Michael

      Why? Facbook isn’t passing the laws. Career politicians are.

      • Joe

        Facebook bans sex offenders from all of their social media/web platfroms. They use California law for any dispute. California law says that sex offenders cannot be denied access to “business services.” Many people use Facebook pages to promote their business. Facebook doesn’t give a rodent’s rectum about the law. I am sure that they have come up with a similar dodge like landlords do when they say they are not denying you housing because you are on the registry, but because of your underlying/criminal conviction/record.

        • Timmr

          It seems to be a business like Facebook can trump law by claiming they are doing it for safety. Heck, that is what courts have upheld. Maybe the Constitution should be rewritten to reflect the status quo, with one sentence:
          The right of government and corporations to make laws in the name of public safety shall not be infringed.

    • abolishtheregistry.com

      Don’t think that would work. I wonder though, if someone were to have stock, would it make a bigger stink? They’d be able to purchase stock but not use it lol. What benefits could a stock owner get? A tour of their facility? That’d make headlines lol

    • Renny

      Facebook is a business and has every right to determine who can and cannot use their filthy platform.

      Facebook does not discriminate based on geography, race, gender or registration requirements. Anyone convicted of a sex offense is prohibited from helping those freaks get richer.

      They also have a very weak enforcement program. Usually they will not delete a profile unless it is reported. As a New York convicted offender, I have toyed with the Facebook profile deletion process.

      When ESTOP was first passed I had a Facebook account and within a month of my first report to NY, my Tagged and Facebook accounts were deleted.

      I had a friend create a Facebook profile using my name that I did not view, edit, access nor add any friends. It was not deleted. I then created a profile under John Smith, using a generic gmail and within a month of sending the report to NY about a new Facebook profile, it was again deleted. So New York and Facebook were clearly communicating. The profile in my name was not deleted until I took it over from my friend and reported it to New York, at which point it was deleted about three months later.

      Right after ESTOP my Classmates was also deleted. Classmates was NOT supposed to be allowed to get my information from New York because it was not a qualifying website, they were 18+ only. I wrote a scathing letter to NY and Classmates, printing and including the law. No one replied, but my Classmates was restored.

      These internet laws like New York’s ESTOP are easy to follow, but they are not making anyone any safer and clearly are just retributive laws passed by our enemies who still think they are safe from retribution from us.

      • Joe

        When your state sends them list of all offenders with all of their e-mail addresses and screen names., that makes pretty easy. Even if they don’t, when anonymous people decide to cyber-stalk you and report you to every social media platform and forum that they find you on, you tend to get banned from a lot of places.

        • Renny

          The state(NY) will only send the list when requested. They also charge a fee (shocker). And now, they will only send to qualifying requesting social media sites and apps that allow minors(defined by NY as under 17).

          The stalking issue is not something that is reserved for our people. Our enemies the filthy pig dog American scum also get stalked.

          I am not a supporter of the ESTOP law, but other than an administrative trip wire, it has not drastically affected my life, turns out I was not welcome to be part of Facebook anyway, so what the targets in New York did was irrelevant. We are not allowed to use Facebook, therefore we should not use it. Facebook does not violate CA law, they do not care if we are registered or not, the registry is not noted in their terms. Convicted is. It does not state only CA convictions. It means anywhere in the word, anyone ever convicted of a sex offense, misdemeanor or felony, is not permitted to use their service. You would think the enemy would try to convince Facebook to drop this rule, because Facebook is a wonder tracking tool used by police, by excluding former Citizens from using the service, the enemy loses all tracking abilities they would otherwise have.

          I personally would hope that our people would be above the narcissistic personality disorder that is a prerequisite for being an active Facebook user. I mean, I had to go to therapy and I assume the rest of our people did as well. Was that disorder not one of the things they worked on first?

          More on topic, I do not think our enemies legislating what sites we can and cannot access was ever truly meant to protect anyone, we know it and our enemies know it. It is a punishment, plain and simple.

          Now hopefully for the Former Citizens living on those states, particularly NC, the courts of our enemy will see it and put a stop to it.

  5. Joe

    A ruling like this would pretty much be meaningless unless states are not longer permitted to require disclosure internet identifiers and companies like Facebook are no longer permitted to violate themes of their own home state of California which are applied to all users via their TOS.

  6. Chris F

    I read the brief they provided SCOTUS.

    I don’t understand why they fail to mention that the law simply won’t fulfill the states intent at all. Not even a little.

    They ban RSO’s from any social sites to prevent sex offenders from trying to hook up with kids and make any RSOs face a felony for just going to a social site.

    Ok…so an RSO that is intent on breaking existing felony laws about luring children won’t care one second about an additional felony for accessing the sites. Not at all. So that no-social-site law will ONLY affect law abiding RSOs and not the RSOs that don’t want to follow the laws to begin with.

    Why don’t any of these types of law suits address that mistake in the original thinking when creating laws to prevent other laws from being broken???

    Specifically, to quote the SCOTUS brief they submitted:

    ***It goes without saying that protecting minors
    against those who would perpetrate sexual violence
    against them is a compelling government interest of
    paramount importance. But prohibiting access to all
    social networking because some individuals could possibly
    obtain information that could then be used to perpetrate
    criminal acts surely “burns down the house to
    roast the pig.” Reno, 521 U.S. at 882.***

    But, IT DOESN’T EVEN ROAST THE PIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    No “PIG” will be the least bit deterred or prosecuted under this law, only law abiding RSO’s that make mistakes. The “PIGS” will be fine unless caught for breaking the laws that already existed to protect luring children.

    How is this so hard to understand and be included in court arguments???

    I couldn’t find a place to comment on the original article.

  7. T

    I think the same way Chris F. I am Very conservative, and my fellow conservatives just don’t get it. Banning RSO from social media, parks resident restrictions, thinking it will make everyone safer. that is the kind of regulation, is the same logic they fight against the people who want gun control my fellow conservatives claim that having control won’t reduce that gun violence because you can’t regulate the heart of people. they claim that all the control in the world won’t stop a determined person from shooting people. they fight against government violating constitutional right. And they are right regulating will not stop people from shooting if they want to. Nor will stopping banning all RSO from the places mentioned above will stop a determined RSO from re offending and like you said Chris only law abiding RSO will obey it. No violating the constitution is going to make anyone safer anywhere.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *