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]

National

SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that a North Carolina law which prohibits all registrants from accessing commercial social networking websites used by minor children violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“This is a tremendous victory for the registrants of North Carolina as well as registrants throughout the nation,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for the first time that registrants have First Amendment rights including the use of social media websites including Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.”

In its decision, the Court noted that the broad wording of the North Carolina law bars access “not only to commonplace social media websites but also to websites as varied as Amazon.com, Washingtonpost.com, and Webmd.com.” The Court also noted that “(e)ven convicted criminals – and in some instances especially convicted criminals – might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.”

The Court stated clearly their belief that the sexual abuse of a child is “a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people.” The Court also stated clearly that states may pass valid laws in order to protect children and other victims of sexual assault from abuse. The court then ruled that the North Carolina law did not legitimately serve the purpose of protecting children and others from abuse.

Also in its decision, the Court noted the “troubling fact” that the North Carolina law imposed severe restrictions on persons “who have already served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system.” The Court also noted that “(i)t is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used by persons who have completed their sentences.”

“We are encouraged by today’s wise decision of the U.S. Supreme Court,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein. “We are hopeful that this wisdom can be extended to other decisions in the near future.”

Although today’s decision was unanimous, three of the Court’s nine justices – Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas — entered a concurring decision which agreed that the North Carolina law violated the First Amendment, but focused upon the “grave risk” that repeat sex offenders pose to children. In their concurrence, the justices repeated the myth that registrants have a high risk of re-offense. Specifically, the justices stated that “(w)hen sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.”

“It is disappointing that three members of the U.S. Supreme Court continue to repeat a myth which has been disproved by decades of research,” stated Bellucci. “That research, including the findings of Dr. Karl Hanson, has overwhelmingly concluded that registrants have a very low rate of re-offense.”

Opinion

Earlier version:

US Supreme Court strikes down NC sex offender social media ban

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from using Facebook or other social networking sites that minors can join. Full Article

Related

Opinion analysis: Court invalidates ban on social media for sex offenders

Supreme Court says sex offenders can access social media

Supreme Court says even sex offenders get to use Facebook

Articles as of 6/19 (Google)

 

Join the discussion

  1. Lovecraft

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf

    Kennedy delivered the opinion Alito (surprisingly) concurred.

    KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG,
    BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion
    concurring in the judgment, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, J.,
    joined. GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

    So I guess we won 8-0. Sounds like a slam dunk if Im reading that correctly, I think its going to shut down the social media bans across the country. This lopsided opinion likely will keep states from making and enforcing similar laws in the future. I gotta keep reading to see what the opinion has to say.

    • Lovecraft

      After reading and digesting the opinion, all justices ruled in favor 5 unequivocally and 3 somewhat reluctantly (alito, roberts, and thomas)

      Alito was upset with the references to the internet being the public forum of today and that the 5 justices were so easy to give full protection to registrants. He suggested that recividists and high levels registrants could still be targeted. He also cited mckune v lile.

      Alito:
      While I thus agree with the Court that the particular
      law at issue in this case violates the First Amendment, I
      am troubled by the Court’s loose rhetoric. After noting
      that “a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the
      exercise of First Amendment rights,” the Court states that
      “cyberspace” and “social media in particular” are now “the
      most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange
      of views.”

      He further goes on to say:

      But if the entirety of the internet or
      even just “social media” sites16 are the 21st century equiv-
      alent of public streets and parks, then States may have
      little ability to restrict the sites that may be visited by
      even the most dangerous sex offenders. May a State
      preclude an adult previously convicted of molesting chil-
      dren from visiting a dating site for teenagers? Or a site
      where minors communicate with each other about per-
      sonal problems? The Court should be more attentive to the
      implications of its rhetoric for, contrary to the Court’s
      suggestion, there are important differences between cy-
      berspace and the physical world.

      The Court is correct that we should be cautious in apply-
      ing our free speech precedents to the internet. Ante, at 6.
      Cyberspace is different from the physical world, and if it is
      true, as the Court believes, that “we cannot appreciate
      yet” the “full dimensions and vast potential” of “the Cyber
      Age,” ibid., we should proceed circumspectly, taking one
      step at a time. It is regrettable that the Court has not
      heeded its own admonition of caution.

      Everyone seemed to think this: (below was reiterated several times in both opinions)

      Second, the Court assumes
      that the First Amendment permits a State to enact specific, narrow-
      ly-tailored laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct
      that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a
      website to gather information about a minor.

      Based on the above being suggested so frequently its my opinion this is how they are suggesting to states on how to deal with this issue….which imo is great for us.

      • Chris F

        Unfortunately, the minority also added this old thorn in our side, like you mentioned, from McKune V Lile:
        *****
        Repeat sex offenders pose an especially grave risk to
        children. “When convicted sex offenders reenter society,
        they are much more likely than any other type of offender
        to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.”
        McKune, supra, at 33 (plurality opinion); see United States
        v. Kebodeaux, 570 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2013) (slip op.,
        at 8–9).
        *****

        That is a horribly vague line to put in there. More likely to commit a sex assault than a bank robber maybe? Umm…duh. I bet a convicted bank robber is more likely to rob another bank than a sex offender will rob a bank too. This comment shouldn’t be in there because it tries to trick the reader into thinking it means more than it does.

        Hopefully someday SCOTUS will have the balls to correct it’s McKune V Lile false facts that have infected hundreds of cases and thousands of laws based on “frightening and high” and “80% recidivism”. At least in Packingham they didn’t mention that again, but they didn’t correct it either.

        • New Person

          The McKune case is now tainted with the now known research done by Dr Ira and Tara Ellman reporting the case used false facts.

          The fact that the SCOTUS is still using McKune really paves way for a case using unverified information as facts that are now discovered to be false. Notice how they interchangeably stated “repeat sex offenders” and “convicted sex offenders”? There is a difference between a repeat sex offender and a convicted sex offender. A convicted sex offender could have been convicted of only one incident.

        • Kenneth Ackerman

          Re: high recidivism rate
          United States v. Kebodeaux cites Smith, so it is once again put into a Supreme Court Decision. The Packingham attorneys chose not to bring it up in here in order not to embarrass Kennedy. Obviously a win for them. If the court takes Snyder v Michigan that issue will be clear to Alito if he reads that part. It remains a grievous issue to still be resolved at the highest level to keep lower courts and legislators from continuing to believe and cite this as the reason to justify punishment for registrants.

    • New Person

      This is yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge!!!!

      8 – 0 decision!

      I haven’t read the pdf, but an article I read noted that Roberts, Alito, and Thomas agreed that the law violates free speech, but said Kennedy’s opinion went too far in suggesting states have limited role in restricting unlimited access from “dangerous sexual predators”.

      • 1984

        Perhaps if the actual data the shows 95% or better S O do not re-offend were sent to these 3 judges, they might read it. I am sure their animus ways will prevent them from looking it up themselves.

        I am glad to see “We The People” still have a place.

        • New Person

          Along with Dr Ira and Tara Ellmans research work that debunks the source that all the courts have been using.

  2. Alex

    Slam dunk baby!!! I just saw this on the 12pm mid day TV news and just had to run on here. Lol. Almost fell off my chair. Hopefully SCOTUS can keep knocking down the rest of the cases pending or anything else that comes their way related to us.

  3. Harry

    Now, if we can get IML to SCOTUS and maybe the registry?

    • New Person

      The Snyder case is gonna be seen by the SCOTUS soon, hopefully. That has implications that probably affects the IML if Snyder wins.

      • AJ, ex CA

        Based on the strong wording of the Court’s opinion in Packingham, I think not only is Snyder going to be heard, but they it to head off the mass of suits that are percolating throughout the country and headed their way. I’m hopeful SCOTUS will take the “long way around” on Snyder and address the punishment items themselves, and not just rule on the ex post facto issue. They go somewhat hand-in-hand, but I’d prefer the situation that hits the scheme (punishment items), not just the amendments to the scheme (ex post facto). IOW, strike down the punishments themselves, and the the ex post facto argument is also resolved. Maybe, just maybe, SCOTUS will use Snyder to bring the registry back to “just” a Price Club membership. Ideally, but I think a bridge too far, they will say the blanket, public registry is not sufficiently specific or tailored narrowly enough given the burdens and harms it places on people who have paid their debts to society.

        –AJ

  4. i can't wait to die

    “It is well established that, as a general rule, the Gov-ernment “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coali-tion, 535 U. S., at 255”

    hopefully, this statement that was in the opinion can be used where states created laws requiring SO to provide user names, etc… as anonymous free speech is protected.

  5. J

    Justice has been served!

  6. AlexO

    Amazing! An 8-0 ruling should be heard like a thunderstorm across the nation. I have a feeling this is the first of many SO laws that will be struck down.

    Also, did anyone else catch the insanity in the final paragraph?

    “In 2013, Gerding said one of his clients had not been able to attend his child’s T-ball games because of the restrictions. The client’s wife had planned to go to the game and use Skype so her husband could watch without being on the premises, but a sheriff told him that would violate the 2008 law.”

    So the husband would be breaking the law by watching the game from home via Skype? What if the game was actually televised on a local station or his wife recorded the game for the husbands later viewing? This is nuts!

  7. Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

    Finally SCOTUS Speaks Truth!

    * * *
    It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government

    “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.”

    Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,
    535 U. S., at 255.

    That is what North Carolina has
    done here. Its law must be held invalid.

    The judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court is
    reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
    not inconsistent with this opinion.

    It is so ordered.

    JUSTICE GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or
    decision of this case.

    As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  8. Bill Arthur

    The hope for our future liberation lies in Kennedy’s statement: “Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.”
    TROUBLING FACT. I’ll say it is!
    Hopefully this will be an issue before the Court soon. Lawyers get moving; this sound like an invitation.

    • Chris F

      LOL, I submitted my comment that mimics your before I could see your post. 🙂

      I am POSITIVE we would also have Gorsuch on our side based on his past rulings before joining SCOTUS.

    • Lovecraft

      I interpreted that comment to mean the basis for the suit filed by packingham didnt explicitly involve that aspect, but i think that is a telling statement about how the scotus feels about most of the laws registrants have imposed on them…. I think the writing is on the wall.

  9. Mary Davye Devoy

    But keep in mind, Face book is a private provider and they currently have a policy that bans ALL RSO’s. It doesn’t matter if the conviction was a misdemeanor or a felony or if it was 2 months ago or 20 years ago.
    Facebook is legally allowed to prohibit service to who they select, just like Six Flags prohibits all RSO’s.

    So even with this U.S. Supreme Court decision remember in Virginia all nicknames and aliases plus all email addresses of RSO’s must be registered with the Virginia State Police (or face a felony) and then the VSP-IT Department sends those names and addresses to Facebook and if Facebook finds a match they close the account. If that Facebook account was owned by a VA RSO who is under VA-DOC Probation supervision that RSO will face a Probation violation (a felony) if social media or Internet access was prohibited.

    So while this is a real win for arbitrary crimes against RSO’s it does not mean Facebook is going to allow RSO’s to join or not close their account.

    • Chris F

      Yes, it is troubling that there is still a long way to go.

      In addition to a probation violation, if someone is off probation and registered, many places require ALL EMAIL addresses be reported to registration immediately, and those are forwarded to Facebook for removal from Facebook. If a cop finds a sex offender with a Facebook account linked to an email address they don’t know about, that could be a registration violation and years of imprisonment.

      This is why it is PARAMOUNT that we get a challenge to the entire post-probation/parole registry scheme that inhibits our freedom. Thankfully, per their comments, it looks like SCOTUS isn’t too happy about restrictions that carry on long past probation/parole.

      • i can't wait to die

        “It is well established that, as a general rule, the Gov-ernment “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coali-tion, 535 U. S., at 255”

        hopefully, this statement that was in the opinion can be used where states created laws requiring SO to provide user names, etc… as anonymous free speech is protected.

    • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

      Mary Davye Devoy – the real logical next step is to challenge the collection of internet identifiers based on this decision. Arguing that since you cannot take away first amendment rights, and anonymous free speech is covered by the first amendment then you cannot collect these identifiers because it violates one’s consitutional right to anonymous free speech

      ACLU v. Miller, Northern District, Georgia, ACTION 1:96-cv-2475-MHS
      Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
      McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, Syllabus, US Supreme Court, cert to Supreme Court of Ohio, No. 93-986, 1995

      “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”

      Get those challenges ready people…

    • Nicholas Maietta

      Fakebook seems to be in violation of CA Penal codes 290.46(2)(H), CA 290.46(4)(A) and 290.46(B):

       (2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:
      (H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.

       (4) (A) Any use of information disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes other than those provided by paragraph (1) or in violation of paragraph (2) shall make the user liable for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury or a court sitting without a jury, not exceeding three times the amount of actual damage, and not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), and attorney s fees, exemplary damages, or a civil penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

       (B) Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of misuse of the information available via an Internet Web site established pursuant to this section in violation of paragraph (2), the Attorney General, any district attorney, or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the misuse is authorized to bring a civil action in the appropriate court requesting preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or group of persons responsible for the pattern or practice of misuse. The foregoing remedies shall be independent of any other remedies or procedures that may be available to an aggrieved party under other provisions of law, including Part 2 (commencing with Section 43) of Division 1 of the Civil Code.

      Barring registrants from using the service: Illegal as they are a business establishment, who’s register to do business as Facebook in California.

      Scraping the Megans’ Law website for the use of banishing would also fall into inappropriate use of the data.

      And finally, a person or business found to be in violation could be punished, but yet Facebook as not. Who’s with me in that we need to address this issue?

      I live in a house with others who are no longer able to use Neighborhood.com, because I am a registrant and it in their continued access is in violation of their Terms of Service. They actually closed the person’s account, who is NOT a registrant, simply because I moved into the house. (I am now renting a room in the Santa Cruz mountains).

      These banishments by business establishments are criminal in some States. It’s soon time to deal with this. Maybe the time is now?

      • Cool CA RC

        I agree

      • Lake County

        I also agree this issue is ripe for a civil suit against Facebook. We would need a gofundme account to gather enough seed money to begin to file a suit. The biggest problem is that Facebook’s lawyers will ensure this will cost us a large amount of attorney’s fees. We would need an attorney that is willing to get most of their money from Facebook only if we have a win. I never ask you for advice here, but Janice, Chance, any opinions on this issue? Does anyone have any legal opinion as to the reasons why we would not win?

        • Nicholas Maietta

          I was thinking maybe a formation of a dedicated legal entity for this very purpose. Having the entity sue, not the people. If somehow we lose, it’d be the entity that would lose. We need both tax and business experts on this subject as well.

          • Chris F (Can not sue Facebook)

            This may require more research.

            While Facebook’s actions could fail to adhere to a California law, the SORNA guidelines being federal may over-ride that and provide immunity from civil action.

            See this part of SORNA:
            §16915b. Checking system for social networking websites

            “A civil claim against a social networking website, including any director, officer, employee, parent, contractor, or agent of that social networking website, arising from the use by such website of the National Sex Offender Registry, may not be brought in any Federal or State court.”

            • AJ

              @Chris F
              So FB can scrape the National Registry. To my knowledge, there is not enough data on the NR alone for FB to figure out my email address. Perhaps they grab the NR data, then use their data-mining skills to figure out who’s who. Otherwise, it would seem their only avenue would be getting data from the State sites. By using the State sites, and not the NR, the SORNA element wouldn’t apply.

              And technically, there is no National Registry, rather only an amalgamation of State registries.

              –AJ

              • Chris F (To AJ)

                @AJ

                It’s part of the SORNA requirement that the state registries feed the email and other info to the approved social networking sites. There are strict requirements that the social media cannot use that email or other info for any purpose other than to restrict those people from using their site or somehow protecting minors by some other means.

                • AJ (mostly to Chris F)

                  @Chris F
                  Thanks for the info and clarification on SORNA. I’ve never read it, truth be told, as my State exactly mirrors its notification requirements, and I’m not traveling (even domestically) anytime soon.

                  So the Feds are forcing the States to issue blacklists to social media. See http://all4consolaws.org/2017/06/scotus-rules-justly-in-packingham-case/#comment-178416 for a brilliant post from someone near and dear to me about this. 😉 I really don’t see how this is any different than the Gov’t having the red-scare blacklists or a Bill of Attainder against communists. Hmmm…that BoA argument is sounding better and better.

                  Another angle I thought of as a result of Packingham, beyond the IL case it almost certainly will help, is its effect on presence restrictions. SCOTUS has ruled RCs can “attend” a discussion or linger in the ePublic Square known as Facebook. So how is it the Government (at any level) can prevent me in the physical world from that same activity? Many states bar RCs from parks. What if I wish to have or join a protest, say a sit-in, at the park? What if I wish to protest at City Hall and it’s next to a park, or a school, or wherever? I know many laws have the escape of “loitering” (a legal tangle in and of itself) for the RC, but it still seems the law is overly broad and restricting innocent behavior, including First Amendment rights. The Pepitone case in IL will be interesting to say the least, especially in the light of Packingham.

                  –AJ

                  • Chris F (To AJ)

                    Your points are exactly correct.

                    There is NO restriction placed on Sex Offenders that should pass constitutional muster, because there was no Substantive Due Process involved in our being on the list. Per Connecticut DPS V Doe (2003), the Sex Offender registry makes no judgement that a sex offender is currently dangerous. Therefore, there is no justification for someone on the list to have any liberty interest affected by any law or city ordinance.

                    Anything that gets to SCOTUS should succeed in being won by us as far as restrictions go if challenged under Substantive Due Process or Bill of Attainder.

                    The IML is the same kind of evil as the government notifying Facebook of our email address. Since no determination of dangerousness was done, Facebook has to ban all of us because it can’t afford to do the due dilligence on every sex offender that the government failed to do during a fair trail just one time. Other countries get alerted of our sex offender status, and have to ban all of us for the same reasons. The government is facilitating our unconstitutional bans and needs to be stopped.

                    Unless these issues get before SCOTUS, lesser judges will keep ruling against us just because they want to, regardless of what is right.

        • AJ

          @Lake County
          Actually, suing in county court is quite often a cheaper, viable option. FB would still need to show up to defend themselves–and expose their legal strategy–or face possible default judgment. Since an RC could limit the damage claim, it could probably even be done pro se in small claims. Even if FB shows, local judges tend to be a little more resistant to some “high falutin'” lawyer running their court room and telling them how things should be.

          This strategy is not limited to CA RCs, either. In fact, it’s often handy to sue a company that operates, but is not based, in one’s state. It adds a layer of difficulty for the company, and they often won’t even show up. (I know this happens, as I have a direct family member who pursues this against airlines over various things.) If any RCs state laws are similiar to CA’s, it may be a ripe suit to be done on the cheap.

          Hitting FB a bunch of times across the state in multiple courthouses would be even better, as it becomes a bigger headache for them. Can they afford it? Of course, but that doesn’t change that they would be at risk of loss in every single case.

          Would FB prevail? Maybe, but then one files an appeal, perhaps with the help of ACLU or ACSOL or the like.

          –AJ

      • G4Change

        I totally agree! I think a lawsuit against Facebook (at least as far as California law is concerned) needs to happen!

  10. Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

    I posit Alito’s

    Misleading “Concurring in Judgement”

    Which I suggest needs be studied and Countered with Truth in Reasoned Logic.

    ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
    II

    While I thus agree with the Court that the particular law at issue in this case violates the First Amendment, I am troubled by the Court’s loose rhetoric. After noting that “a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights,” the Court states that “cyberspace” and “social media in particular” are now “the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views.” Ante, at 4–5. The Court declines to explain what this means with respect to free speech law, and the Court holds no more than that the North Carolina law fails the test for content-neutral “time, place, and manner”
    restrictions. But if the entirety of the internet or even just “social media” sites16 are the 21st century equivalent of public streets and parks, then States may have little ability to restrict the sites that may be visited by even the most dangerous sex offenders.

    —-<<>>—
    May a State preclude an adult previously convicted of molesting children from visiting a dating site for teenagers?

    —<<>>—
    Or a site where minors communicate with each other about personal problems?

    The Court should be more attentive to the implications of its rhetoric for, contrary to the Court’s
    suggestion, there are important differences between cyberspace and the physical world.
    I will mention a few that are relevant to internet use by sex offenders.

    —<<>>—
    First, it is easier for parents to monitor the physical locations that their children visit and the individuals
    with whom they speak in person than it is to monitor their internet use. Second, if a sex offender is
    seen approaching children or loitering in a place fre-—————— sites discussed above would satisfy the First Amendment. Until such a law is before us, it is premature to address that question. 16As the law at issue here shows, it is not easy to provide a precise definition of a “social media” site, and the Court makes no effort to do so. Thus, the scope of its dicta is obscure.

    Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017) 11
    ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

    quented by children, this conduct may be observed by parents, teachers, or others. Third, the internet offers an unprecedented degree of anonymity and easily permits a would-be molester to assume a false identity.

    The Court is correct that we should be cautious in applying our free speech precedents to the internet. Ante, at 6. Cyberspace is different from the physical world, and if it is true, as the Court believes, that “we cannot appreciate yet” the “full dimensions and vast potential” of “the Cyber Age,” ibid., we should proceed circumspectly, taking one step at a time. It is regrettable that the Court has not heeded its own admonition of caution.

    —-<<>>—-
    Alito’s arguments need to be addressed & countered.

    As Yehovah Lives, so should we

    • Chris F

      I don’t even see why Alito needed another opinion. I see the majority saying that a law certainly can be narrowly tailored to stop a repeat sex offender from luring a child on a social web site. Why Alito needed a separate opinion on the subject is beyond me.

      Contrary to fighting the minority though, I think we use their view to our advantage in a case that gets to SCOTUS. All we have to do is agree that it’s perfectly acceptable for a judge, during sentencing, to restrict the social networking activities of someone that preys on children using social networking. It is NOT ok for legislature to create blanket restrictions though. Leave it as a tool for the judge to use during a fair trial where both sides are heard.

      • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

        Chris F you stated:

        “Why Alito needed a separate opinion on the subject is beyond me.”

        I posit Alito’s reasoning is founded on the fear of the Ignorant Populace anger directed to SCOTUS for not delivery Perpetual Retribution that they hunger & thirst for daily, as they Want to feel the False Self Righteousness & False Piety that triggers the indorphins within the Ignorant Populaces inimical & impotent brains.

        I concur with you on “fighting the minority though” but:

        Suggest being prepared for the Unseen or Unknowable out comes as Life is always Filled ( Blessed ) or Emptied ( Cursed ) with such.

        I speak a true song

        As Yehovah Lives, so should we

        • Lake County

          Your words are still hard to understand, but I think your comment is correct. It may just be that they are trying to get the uneducated population to not criticize this court for the unanimous decision.
          ——

          If we were really lucky, we will see a Trump Tweet on the court’s decision. But that would be really stupid of him, right? lol

          • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

            Lake County,

            You infer correctly the masses “At Large” in a Pure Democratic Style behave & function under the Herd Mentality of Mob Role.

            This reality is what most persons in the Private & Public sectors attempt to mitigate their exposure to such Caustic & Acidic repercussion, it can not be denied as a Due Diligence to simple human self interest.

            Therefore we must celebrate individuals of past, present, & the future who step forward and place Self-Interest at a level position with their fellows, The Founding Fathers of Our nation should come to mind as they secured Justice for so many evidenced by the SCOTUS ruling.

            Even more crucial but even less acknowledged by The Masses who would prefer from a Illogical Unreasoned based emotionally “Intuitive Judgement” Practice & Elevate “Mob Rule” clothed under the term “Pure Democracy” or “Direct Democracy”, and if I may state the Ugly Truth has always lead down the path of the “Tyranny of the Majority” since even before Antediluvian times there has only been one Counter to this inherent weakness to the Human Condition.

            The Counter to the Inherent Weakness to The Human Condition is Objective Morals, in contrast to Subjective Morals which is the default inclination of the Human Ego. The vast plurality of development of Objective Morals has been the Institutions within the Structures of Religion of which with few exemption have been Co-opted or Commandeered by the empowered few with some incite or education beyond the complete lack of interested Populace of being educated who foolishly delegate the efforts of Profound Thought to a few.

            The Exemptions can be duly note in the documents of the Torah of Moses & later additions that encompass the Tanakh more commonly know by the less recognized Pejorative term Old Testament. these source documents too became Co-opted by the addition of the Institutions of the Oral Law of men & their traditions established predictively by the Majority Positioned political or Populace group Pharisees which in the Hebrew language simply means “the separated ones” who established with the approval of The Roman Empire, rabbinic religion.

            Despite these obscuring developments the founders of The United States Constitution have produced good Fruit & Produce to this day and therefore it Is our Objective Responsibility to continue to Guard (Shamar) for today and future generations to follow the Paths of Correct Conduct lest we be abandoned by the Creator Most High to the cold hands of Calamity.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antediluvian
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morality
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh

            I speak a True Song

            As Yehovah Lives, so should we

      • New Person

        ===========================
        I don’t even see why Alito needed another opinion.
        ===========================

        I see it this way: The first amendment cannot be abridged. It’s all or nothing.

        The three separate judges want to say that the states still have the ability to corral sex offenders due to the high recidivism rates.

        Lo and behold, if they only knew their sources are false and do not come from a verified expert, then those three judges may have to re-think their separate opinions. But this also could be foreshadowing for the Snyder case and we have can see lines draw right now upon the matter.

        Yet Kennedy denoting service outside of punishment is troubling. Those are virtual shots fired at registration.

  11. Chris F (WOW!)

    As pointed out when this story broke in the “general” comments section for June by Paul, the best part of this opinion is this right here:

    “Of importance, the troubling fact that the law
    imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have
    served their sentence and are no longer subject to the
    supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an
    issue before the Court.”

    Note it says “TROUBLING FACT”!

    This is a HUGE hint of the direction to take and win a challenge that gets before SCOTUS that could unravel the entire Sex Offender Registry scheme.

    Couple that quote with the hints in Connecticut DPS V Doe (2003) oral arguments and opinions that the online registry may not pass a Substantive Due Process challenge, and I think we have a recipe to beat this at its core.

    Important references from this Packingham decision that could be referenced in other challenges:

    *****
    the provision is not “ ‘“narrowly tailored to
    serve a significant governmental interest.” ’ ” McCullen v. Coakley,
    573 U. S. ___, ___.
    *****
    However, the assertion of a
    valid governmental interest “cannot, in every context, be insulated
    from all constitutional protections.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S.
    557, 563.
    *****
    A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that
    all persons have access to places where they can speak
    and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once
    more. The Court has sought to protect the right to speak
    in this spatial context. A basic rule, for example, is that a
    street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise
    of First Amendment rights. See Ward v. Rock Against
    Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 796 (1989). Even in the modern
    era, these places are still essential venues for public gatherings
    to celebrate some views, to protest others, or simply
    to learn and inquire
    *****
    In order to survive intermediate scrutiny, a law must be
    “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental
    interest.” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014)
    (slip op., at 18) (internal quotation marks omitted). In
    other words, the law must not “burden substantially more
    speech than is necessary to further the government’s
    legitimate interests.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 19) (internal
    quotation marks omitted).
    *****
    But the assertion of a valid governmental interest
    “cannot, in every context, be insulated from all constitutional
    protections.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 563
    (1969).
    *****
    And a nice juicy new quote from Packingham that can be cited in future challenges (and again, note they specifically us the words “COMPLETED THEIR SENTENCES”:

    In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is
    to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise
    of First Amendment rights. It is unsettling to suggest
    that only a limited set of websites can be used even by
    persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted
    criminals—and in some instances especially convicted
    criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from
    these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular
    if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding
    lives.
    **********
    It’s a great day!

    Now let’s figure out how to get a proper challenge in front of SCOTUS to tear down the entire registry scheme!

    • New Person

      ==================================
      “Of importance, the troubling fact that the law
      imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have
      served their sentence and are no longer subject to the
      supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an
      issue before the Court.”
      ==================================

      This is why I continue to state “involuntary servitude”. It is prohibited unless to punish a crime. You’ve completed your punitive service to the state, but must continue to serve the state as a free person?!

      Registration isn’t punitive.

      Like I said, it’s so simple, but no one believes involuntary servitude can exist today.

      • AJ

        @New Person
        I’ve definitely become more and more convinced about the involuntary servitude argument, thanks in large part to your information and posts. Thanks!

        I agree that the phrase, “severe restrictions on persons who already have
        served their sentence,” points strongly to an involuntary servitude or Bill of Attainder claim.

        Your comment of “it’s so simple, but no one believes involuntary servitude can exist today,” rang in my ears, too. Whenever something is deemed impossible or “never” to happen is when it has the best chance of success. “Nobody would ever hide a bunch of soldiers inside a big wooden horse. Let’s bring that beauty inside the gates!”

        –AJ

  12. Eric Knight

    Two ironies:

    Irony No. 1: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts has decided against himself in a case that wouldn’t even be considered had Supreme Court Attorney for the State John Roberts had asserted that sex offender registration would be nothing more intrusive on the sex offender than a pleasant Tuesday morning filling out a Price Club application in Smith v Doe.

    Irony No. 2: The original plaintiff, Gerard Packinham, was busted for posting in Facebook, which as a private company, has a right to ban people as they see fit (as registrants aren’t a protected class), so Packingham (and other registrants) may still be banned from Facebook despite the ruling. A lawsuit to protest this ban (perhaps based upon Facebook being de facto public presence based upon monopoly status) may be considered in the future (Janice?), but for now, Facebook has every right to do what they want.

    • Chris F

      Yep, a Facebook fight couldn’t be won though.

      Instead, we need to fight that can be won, which is the government’s role in keeping us off Facebook.

      The government’s need to demand our email addresses with penalty of years in prison for refusing, and then providing those to Facebook so they may ban us, is where I believe a good challenge lies. Within the right to free speech is the right to free anonymous speech.

      A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

      Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

      more here: https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

      • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

        I concur,

        To Dwell & Domicile within Light or Darkness with the Sheild of Annonimity is at the Core & Foundation to The First Ammendments Principles.

        It enables The Individual or Messanger to expose Truth that the Majority in any Society would seek to debase & reject New Knowdge for the sake of the selfish desire of the Statues Quo interest of the Ego to the members of the majority group.

        I Speak Truth

        As Yehovah Lives, so should we

      • AJ

        So SCOTUS has confirmed that the State, “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.”
        Isn’t that exactly what they’re doing by giving FB a list of people? How is it different than if the State gave a list and/or photos to the organizers or operators of a physical public square, who then barred everyone on that list from attending? Collusive activity by the State to abridge one’s Free Speech is just as unconstitutional.

        I also wonder how many (if any) States are violating some sort of Data Practices Act by releasing the information to FB, et al. I have a hard time believing FB continuously and repeatedly files FOIAs with the States to get the data. (Even though it’s public data, it doesn’t mean it’s freely given.) And, as others have pointed out, if FB is gleaning the data from the ML sites, they may well be violating a slew of laws across the country.

        As to another post someone said about Six Flags banning RCs….how do they know who’s an RC and who isn’t? As with FB, unless the State is giving them a blacklist or they are scouring the ML sites, there’s no way to find out.

        –AJ

        P.S. This lawful/unlawful concept seems as if it should also apply to the Pepitone case in IL.

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      Eric Knight

      You described Facebook as:

      ” based upon Facebook being de facto public presence based upon monopoly status”

      I would suggest a more accurate description of Facebook as a:

      “A Public Utility”

      Similar to Water, Power, Gas, Sewer, & Telephonic Services those would Never UnReasonably be denied any Human Person for all practical purposes.

      I speak Truth

      As yehovah Lives, so should we

  13. ReadyToFight

    @Bill Arthur. I agree there. Does sound an awful lot like an invitation. I hope it gets taken up.

  14. pgm111

    Good news! My heartfelt thanks to the Packingham legal team for fighting this to the Supreme Court AND WINNING!!

  15. David M

    The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers encourages a rational and humane criminal justice policy to promote fairness, due process, and compassion talks to the lawyers in the Packingham v. North Carolina: Collateral Consequences at the High Court.

    These are very good lawyers that argued this law.

    https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/7/6/5762bba3fa9d7bb3/CriminalDocketEpisode051.mp3?c_id=14975563&expiration=1492772592&hwt=14414e0b518d6f0258bf625e0ffb7691

  16. Bruce Ferrell

    While it stops statue prohibitions, it does nothing about prohibitions via “terms of service”.

    It’s the equivalent of saying no to Jim Crow laws, but continuing to allow the lunch counter owner to maintain a no coloreds policy.

    Nice, but not really useful.

    • Chris F

      True, but it does stop the illegal Search and Seizures based on that law as well as frees the 1500+ people convicted by that law. Of course, now they’ll just take those 1500+ people and violate them for failure to register whatever email address they associated with those Facebook accounts.

      The biggest gain from this is finding out that SCOTUS may not approve of restrictions on someone after they finish their sentence and probation/parole. That’s huge, and the lynch pin that could take down the entire registry scheme.

      • AlexO

        Yup. This seems like it has opened a pretty big hole for additional to be overruled, and hopefully the registry as a whole. That’s the end game for us all.

  17. mike r

    Yeah SCROTUS is ready to hear a real challenge to the entire scheme it is just going to take the right argument like the ones that we are preparing…This is just a sneak peak at what they will state when we hit em hard with facts and evidence and debunk their high risk BS. Chris this is huge we are definitely on the right track …..I will be back on it soon…I am sick and having to do a lot of homework so I took a break but I will be back on it so anything helpful throw it over into general comments…Thanks….

  18. Cool CA RC

    (2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:

    (A) Health insurance.

    (B) Insurance.

    (C) Loans.

    (D) Credit.

    (E) Employment.

    (F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships.

    (G) Housing or accommodations.

    (H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.

  19. Lake County

    C-SPAN is playing the oral arguments for this case right now (1pm PT). Here is a audio link (with added funny video) of the oral arguments:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pU6qGfSWT8

    • AlexO

      Thanks for the link! It was very interesting hearing the argument. The few times I have listened to court arguments, it always strikes me how mellow and unprofessional everything sounds. I mean, when you watch a piece of fiction like this everything is so eloquent and precises. But in reality even those at the very top of the game still always do the “um, ah, ect” that we’re always taught in school to avoid. Even the justices!

    • David Kennerly, Thought Crime Wave

      Oyez.org is an excellent way to hear oral arguments of all SCOTUS cases, along with real-time captioning. They are available very soon after arguments and provide terrific commentary, too.

      When I was putting together a study of all SCOTUS cases in which sex offenses and child pornography were at issue, it was invaluable. I was able to break out each case according to the votes of individual justices, whether positive or negative rulings (from my/our standpoint), as well as a rating system of individual justices.

  20. Agamemnon

    As a parolee, one of the (many) restrictions imposed upon me is being prohibited from social media like facebook and Twitter. Can anyone tell me if today’s SCOTUS ruling repeals this parole restriction?

    • AlexO

      I do not believe it does. While on supervision you can have almost any amount of restrictions placed on you. This was dealing with the person being off supervision but still having this restriction placed on him.

    • Lake County

      I doubt it because to get released early on parole, you are agreeing to abide by the strict rules they place upon you. While on parole, you are still serving your prison sentence with just about any restriction they place upon you. Not much different than all the other things you are restricted from while being inside of prison. Parole is a restrictive option that you do not have to agree with. You have the option to complete your prison term and not have these restrictions upon release.

      • Agamemnon

        Parole is not optional in CA. Even if you serve your sentence in full, you are still placed in parole upon your release.

  21. Stephen

    If you Violate Face Books terms of service, they can do more than just kick you off, They can File a Civil suit and Clean out your bank Accounts. What you can do is go after the Politian’s that use it for public Speaking. They Must Equally Represent everyone.

    • Cool CA RC

      They are n o longer a private business.

    • Cool CA RC

      I can go buy a share of Facbook and still can’t access it. I would be a part owner way under 1% ownership of facebook but still can’t access it.

  22. Michael

    Should come as no surprise that Justices Roberts, Alito and Thomas choose to perpetrate a myth. In most all cases, Rightists are the ones pushing this type of legislation.

    ….

  23. David

    Celebrating!!! SCOTUS = “Making America FREE Again!” 😁

  24. mike r

    that oral argument was really bizarre…how the court kept throwing out hypothetical situations one after the other and asking “would you say that would be unconstitutional or constitutional ” and finally when the attorney says to one of those inquiries that it was irrelevant he hit it on the nose…they dont accept hypotheticals from us so why should they get to use them? this was the nest argued case that i have seen for our side and is just a snapshot of what’s coming….

  25. mike r

    what i didn’t like was the fact that he didn’t debunk the other side when they were stating the same old falsehoods about recidivism…

  26. ReadyToFight

    That statement about the reoffense rate really pisses me off! And I hope it pisses the rest of you off too! I want to fire back so damn bad! Ignorance!

  27. mike r

    Another thing..I bet when the issue of the recidivism rate falsehoods are brought before the court and are extensively argued that the court might, just might, be a little ticked off that the solicitor general and other state attorneys have been duping the court and putting forth falsehood stats and purposely misrepresenting the facts to the court and making them look like fools. I will be sure to argue that the court should find this deception as a key factor when scrutinizing any future cases involving ex sex offenders…I did like how one of the justices I think is was Ginsberg who stated “these ex sex offenders” in one of her questions was great…I don’t think SCROTUS is going to be happy with the government when my case gets in front of them..I will pound home the false statistic claims and will relentlessly force them to justify any and all these laws….This is some great ammo coming out of this opinion….

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      mike r, I concur with your approach to Convincingly Argue before SCOTUS.

      As you well stated:

      “the solicitor general and other state attorneys have been duping the court and putting forth falsehood stats and purposely misrepresenting the facts to the court and making them look like fools.”

      Make it clear to SCOTUS that they are Victims too and you are Advocating for their good Reputation & Future Legacy.

      It is key to remember that the Jurist are human beings Not gods from on High, the ugly truth is that they too suffer from the Inherent Weakness of the Human Condition which always inclines humans to defer to make “Intuitive Judgments” in contrast to Reasoned Objective “Probability Judgment” which they personally have proven themselves to have Fallen Pry to, by the fact of their past Unjust Rulings.

      I Speak Truth

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  28. davidh

    this can be true, but so what: ““(w)hen sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.” The bigger issue looms and that is lower recidivism overall, regardless of what one does when they do reoffend!

  29. G4Change

    I am very happy and feel blessed by this decision!!! Praise GOD!!!

    In the meantime, I’d like to invite Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas to please go back to Neptune or wherever they’re from because apparently they haven’t a clue about reality!

    “(w)hen sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.”

    Really???? Get your heads out of your a**es!!!!!

    Despite the ignorance of these 3 justices, I am grateful that they ruled properly!

    • Chris F

      That statement may not be false though. It is just misleading and tries to make you think something that isn’t written there.

      Sex offenders that DO recidivate and commit another crime, are more likely to commit a sex offense than a bank robber or drug dealer. Just like a bank robber that commits another crime is more likely to rob a bank then a sex offender.

      It’s just a very deceptively worded sentence that has no place in Judicial opinions and really says nothing about overall Sex Offender recidivism in comparison to other groups recidivism.

      I guess they should include this in every drug offender’s case:

      “(w)hen drug dealers reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new drug related charge”.

      • New Person

        It’s odd. I think recently I got into a discussion with a couple of people on here that the high recidivism rate was one of the major factors for saying that registration was regulatory. Here, we have three justices stating just that in their own opinion, but that the first amendment rights were trampled upon egregiously that all three justices had to concur with the higher issue – first amendment rights need protecting.

        Then, Kennedy made an off comment in the opinion that restrictions after paying your dues was “troubling”. That’s a dig at Justice Roberts.

        ::: raising shoulders ::: guess I do know how to interpret things as a layman.

      • PK

        Good Point.

    • AJ

      “[W]hen sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.”

      Yup, and jaywalkers are much more likely to jaywalk than speeders; speeders more likely to speed than jaywalkers. People with one tattoo are more likely to get a(nother) tattoo than someone who has none. What a profound sociology item they’ve stumbled upon for us: the more someone does something, the more likely they are to do it again (even if just once versus zero). Red-light running? Yup. Going two days without changing underwear? Yup. It doesn’t matter the item or topic, anytime a human has tried something once, they are more prone to try it again compared to someone who has yet to try it. That is the exact cycle the judicial system seeks to break via retribution, restitution and rehabilitation. IOW, the human has to suffer a severe enough consequence to make it unpalatable to try again. Kinda like getting sick on tequila… 😉

      –AJ

  30. RP

    I wonder what can be done about states thst require you to still give them your account name and email associated with it even if they don’t ban you. Then they turn it over the info to the social media site who has a policy banning sex offenders so they delete your account. In effect the state is taking an action they know will bar your free speech.

    One could take it further and say with facial and name recognition software the online registry could be used by social media to filter out sex offenders and that they state run registry is a tool retarding free speech.

    • James A

      RP, you raise a very good point. Facebook bans sex offenders. Their prohibition is based on government compelled speech – our provision of registration information that is then provided to the public.

  31. PJ

    What about Facebook ? Practically every corner of the internet where you are able to blog and speak an opinion requires a Facebook account. They are “publicly” traded and hooked linked to almost every site (id say about 90%) where you are able to leave a comment, opinion and everything talking. Even more so, the news media sites. They hinder my first amendment right to leaving an opinion on an article that was published by the free press news sites. Anonymity is also protected by the U.S constitution and Bill of Rights to protect an unpopular individual from the lynch mob majority in our society.

    • PK

      Several Internet Websites do actually require Commenters to Login via Facebook, and or LinkedIn and Google.

    • David Kennerly, Thought Crime Wave

      I think that the day when a market-dominant behemoth, such as Facebook, may come to be considered as a “common carrier” is possibly on the horizon. At that point, as a common-carrier, they would fall afoul of the courts if they were to continue to block membership of such a wide class of people. This will also raise a complex tangle of issues before it is resolved, including, and especially, how it can reasonably control speech (think: terrorist sympathizers). If it were to be seen as a common carrier, I don’t think that its corporate structure as a publicly-traded company will be the limiting factor (as opposed to a private firm) but its defacto monopoly status in the marketplace.

      However, I suspect that its policies on sex offenders will eventually fall by the wayside as a result of shifting social pressure, adverse publicity and, one would hope, common sense.

      Personally, I can’t stand FB while recognizing its ubiquity among most of society. I detest Mark Zuckerberg and, especially, Chris Kelly, who is one of our arch enemies and who went way beyond simply setting FB’s policies on “sex offenders.” He has been a major contributor to hystericist pressure groups and has played an instrumental role in lobbying for ever more draconian sex laws.

  32. mike r

    Son you like that approach huh..lol..gives the court a way out and a scapegoat to pin their mistake on..right? Chris the court did actually casually touched on that subject of “by your logic pretty soon you will have everyone who commits a crime on a list and barred from everywhere ” or something to that statement, it just appears to me that scrotus has actually been watching whats happening in the lower courts and they seem perplexed by what they are witnessing and are anticipating, and even encouraging with all their hints, for someone to get the real issues in front of them..They cant come right out and say anything else is unconstitutional unless it is properly in front of them but they have thrown several direct statements on what may work..

    • Chris F (To Mike R)

      @Mike R

      Exactly.

      I don’t think they are blind to all the media attention over the years to all of the restrictions and laws pointing to those on the registry.

      I think SCOTUS thought they were clear in Connecticut DPS V Doe that the registry was only constitutional as long as it didn’t infer dangerousness and was only making public info easier to access.

      Once you make the first restriction against a registrant (Which Connecticut did the year after the SCOTUS decision) you void that ruling, and violate Substantive Due Process by not having restrictions tailored to the individual during the fair sentence portion of the trial. On top of that, the HUD law against assisting registrants and the IML are national examples of laws proving those on the registry are considered a threat.

      It really amazes me how we got to such a low point without SCOTUS getting involved again.

      I’m not sure how it doesn’t “shock the conscience” that every one of our 19,354 cities (real number!) is allowed to make laws against anyone based on them simply pleading no contest or guilty to any crime long ago, after serving their time and even many having convictions set aside or deferred and not actually being convicted. In effect, that means anyone that plead to a DUI charge could have to research every city they drive through to determine if they are violating some city ordinance by doing so.

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      mike r

      With regard to your observation:

      “Son you like that approach huh..lol..gives the court a way out and a scapegoat to pin their mistake on..right?”

      The ancient ritual of Redeeming oneself by placing debts (sins) upon a scapegoat is a deep rooted Instution that has been Profaned & Abused since time immemorial.

      I believe SCOTUS as current subscribers to The Institutions of Peer Pressure & High School Politics lack the Obejective Moral Courage to practice True Justice, so they will meander upon the Path of Correct Conduct to the Calling of Heaven & Earth bearing witness to their poor Demeanor in the presence of The True High Court.

      Should you be grant a audience before their Simple Mortalship, you need be shrewd & cleaver, a strong command of the strengths & weaknesses to your arguments is prerequisite to capture their high condescend gaze. You must Steel your self and be quick to answer with confident repose.

      I petition The Most High Father in Heaven give you grace.

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  33. Brubaker

    I’ve always said, the automobile license plate for all North Hanoi Carolina should read as their state motto:
    North Carolina the Un-Constitutional state.
    Of course, the ruling couldn’t be any other way in a free society when the foundation of law is the Constitution.
    Whewwwwwwwwww

  34. mike r

    excellent comment Chris I think I will work your comment into our motion. keep tabs on general comments for updates and more collaboration…I don’t see how all these civil rights groups aren’t jumping on this because whomever topples the registry is going to be famous and will be cononized in the annals of history…great PR for any civil attorneys….

  35. mike r

    son of liberty…you made my point in your religious tirade that very few could probably follow. I think they will bite on that low hanging fruits and be able to regress to that old institution og blame shifting that you preached about. Keep it real Son and even though some of your religious references and oratories maybe difficult to follow or even understand sometimes..lol…you give color to these comments sections and I am far from being a religious man but if it makes you feel better and its your way to speak your mind I say go for it…
    As Yehovah Lives, so should we…lol…

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      mike r

      with regard to your statement:

      “you made my point in your religious tirade that very few could probably follow. I think they will bite on that low hanging fruits and be able to regress to that old institution og blame shifting that you preached about.”

      Yes it is a high probability that SCOTUS will defer to avail themselves of misty mirrors, therefore it is incumbent upon you in the service of True Justice to identify the gaps they expose and you fill them, in that you will be lead to victory with no glory.

      Pleased to assist you in making your Point – All I ask is you think of me kindly.

      Now with regard to Religion I have no interest or desire to proselytize any person to any religious belief.

      I do however not sensor my own self or speech of my own acquired or inherited knowledge from my Forefathers, least would I do so to cater to those who do not feed me, provide me bedding, or look upon me with חֵן (chen) or eyes that demonstrate חָנַן (chanan) as my Father does for me and as I too look upon my sons.

      I speak a True Song

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  36. living the lie

    “It is disappointing that three members of the U.S. Supreme Court continue to repeat a myth which has been disproved by decades of research,” stated Bellucci. “That research, including the findings of Dr. Karl Hanson, has overwhelmingly concluded that registrants have a very low rate of re-offense.”

    Yes; it’s very disappointing. But can anyone expect anything less from dishonest people in high places?

    They completely disregard the truth as if it doesn’t exist. If anyone thinks these corrupt people are unaware of the truth/facts then you are fooling yourself. $omeone has gotten to them, and there are plenty of industries related to the “sex offender” lie (I refuse to call it a myth because it is a lie; not a myth) making enough money to buy influence. Only a fool would listen to these people that have sold their soul. One must watch what they do, as this article has done to a certain extent.

    • But but but.....

      I believe one of the three has to support the false data narrative to support his own case from 2003 or else he would undermine it and the Price Club membership requirement, which would ruin his credibility. Carry the error as they said in engineering and math classes so at least the process can be seen even if it is wrong in the end….

  37. Lovecraft

    WRAL, one of the main news outlets out of Raleigh, NC posted this article about the repeal and a decent 3 minute video. A lady from the nc coalition against sexual assault stated that this law and others like it do nothing and that time and effort should be on treatment not restrictions. At the end of the video the broadcasters said the govenor (roy cooper) was very disappointed and the AG (josh stein) vowed to go back to the drawing board and draft another law that would be consitutional….I cant wait to see it. Im hoping they are just blowing smoke, but who knows.

    http://www.wral.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-sex-offender-social-media-ban/16770986/

    • AlexO

      They can use social media but only on days that don’t end in Y.

  38. mike r

    Worked your comments in there Chris and this is what I put in there around the false statistic subject…
    1. I would think that the court would be seriously upset by the fact that the attorneys for the government not only misrepresented the facts about recidivism rates to the court in McKune using unconfirmed statistics, but they continue to feed the court the false assumptions and keep misrepresenting the actual facts in just about every case brought on sex offender laws, even though they (the attorneys and legislators) know that those assumptions have been thoroughly debunked. Thus, any assertion in this case or future cases by the government concerning facts about sex offender recidivism rates should be suspect and should be thoroughly fact checked by the courts.

    • AlexO

      The really frustrating thing for me when it comes to facts in general is that the government seems to always be incredibly hesitant to even want to hear any facts to the contrary of any policy that’s in place. Just think of the insane struggle of getting women the right to vote (lots of very false facts presented as to why they shouldn’t, including “your wife’s vote will cancel out yours”), segregation, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, climate change, etc. And I think its because the government, much like your drunk uncle, hates to admit they were wrong. And unlike any of those other issues that didn’t involve any crime (well, no crime outside of people being criminals for trying to do all those things), sex offenders have actually done something wrong. So to admit that what the system has done in terms of “saving the children” was wrong, is a monumental pill to swallow for them.

      • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

        @ AlexO

        I posit new knowledge for your consideration:

        Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

        Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible
        scientific evidence?

        Here are three alternative answers:

        1. The “Science Comprehension Thesis” (SCT), which identifies defects in the public’s knowledge and reasoning capacities as the source of such controversies;

        2. The “Identity-protective Cognition Thesis” (ICT), which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science.

        3. The simple answer may be – Cognitive-Bias

        http://www.datascienceassn.org/sites/default/files/Science%20Comprehension%20Thesis.pdf
        http://www.datascienceassn.org/tags/cognitive-bias

        I speak a True song

        As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  39. David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave

    This, from the ever-news-scouring Bill Dobbs on the North Carolina victory:

    A U.S. Supreme Court win! In a unanimous ruling the court struck down North Carolina’s law banning registrants from social media as unconstitutional; individuals on the sex offense registry have First Amendment rights. The North Carolina law makes it a felony for registrants to simply “access” social media sites that allow under-18-year-olds to post such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn—which means banishment from sites that are virtual town squares for many millions of people. No actual online wrongdoing is required for conviction; a reporter opined that reading Donald Trump’s tweets would be a crime. Reports say one thousand prosecutions have been brought using this statute. Lester Packingham fought back, challenging his conviction and the law and he won. He and thousands of North Carolina registrants will benefit from the Supreme Court’s decision. Similar laws in other states are now under legal scrutiny. Stay tuned – the politicians are already talking about tweaking the law. This court decision makes it harder for the government to interfere with social media access, now the fight turns to the corporations which control large online platforms.

    Kudos and congratulations to Lester Packingham and his lawyers, David T. Goldberg of Stanford University Law School’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and North Carolina Public Defender Glenn Gerding. Appreciation also goes to Eugene Volokh and David Post, a long list of lawyers, individuals and organizations who brought attention to this matter and supported it before the Supreme Court; the amicus briefs are linked below.

    Have a look at USA Today’s report and a news story out of North Carolina. Wayne Logan, a law professor and pioneering legal scholar on registry issues, has a terrific analysis for Collateral Consequences Resource Center of the decision including insight about how the court handled the pernicious issue of recidivism statistics. The Supreme Court’s decision is linked at the end of this post. -Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire

    USA Today | June 19, 2017
    Supreme Court says sex offenders can access social media

    By Richard Wolf

    Excerpts: Social networking websites have become such an important source of information that even sex offenders should not be barred from social media, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday. The justices said a North Carolina law that made it a felony for sex offenders to access sites such as Facebook, Snapchat and LinkedIn violated the First Amendment.

    Although North Carolina’s law goes further than most states, Packingham’s victory represents a ringing defense of free speech rights for some of the nation’s most reviled citizens — the estimated 850,000 registered sex offenders. Kennedy called the case “one of the first this court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet.”

    “To foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. “Even convicted criminals — and in some instances, especially convicted criminals — might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.”

    It didn’t help state officials that their case focused on Lester Packingham, whose sex crime in 2002 resulted only in two years of supervised probation, but who was arrested eight years later for celebrating the dismissal of a parking ticket with a Facebook post that began “Man God is Good!” MORE:
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supreme-court-says-sex-offenders-can-access-social-media/103006410/

    News & Observer (Raleigh, NC) | June 19, 2017
    US Supreme Court strikes down NC sex offender social media ban

    By Anne Blythe

    Excerpts: The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from using Facebook or other social networking sites that minors can join. In North Carolina, where 14,268 people are entered in the N.C. Sex Offender and Public Protection Registry database, civil liberty organizations have paid close attention to Packingham’s case. Glenn Gerding, the Chapel Hill attorney who represented Packingham, argued several years ago that the law as written could make it difficult for a registered offender to engage in routine Internet activity, such as a Google search.

    The 2008 restriction was part of a legislative package that Roy Cooper, the state Attorney General at the time, advocated for many years. Cooper was elected governor last fall. The 2008 legislative package came about at a time that state attorneys general across the nation were raising concerns about social media sites such as Facebook and Myspace, hoping to protect users from sexual predators using the networks.

    Many states have laws that require sex offenders to provide information about their internet use to authorities. States also limit internet use as a condition of parole or probation. Louisiana has a law similar to North Carolina’s, but unlike the N.C. law just struck down, Louisiana’s applies only to people convicted of sex crimes with children, according to a document filed in Supreme Court. MORE:
    http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article156928489.html

    Collateral Consequences Resource Center | June 20, 2017
    SCOTUS invalidates law criminalizing sex offender access to social media

    By Wayne Logan

    Excerpts: Whereas in multiple prior decisions the Court characterized the governmental interest in combatting sexual offending against children as very significant, and invoked dramatic rhetoric of recidivism risk of sex offenders as a whole as “frightening and high” and the like, Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court refrained from such language; it simply emphasized the seriousness of preventing sexual offenses directed at children.

    The absence of such inflammatory rhetoric about recidivism risk perhaps reflects awareness of recent scholarship making clear that inflated empirical assessments of risk, repeatedly invoked as justification by courts and legislatures to justify expansive and often draconian sex offender-related policies, are well off the mark. (Indeed, it is worth noting that Justice Kennedy himself has used such language in the past.)

    Second, and no less important, is language in Packingham suggesting a possible softening of the Court’s customary unequivocal backing of laws imposing harsh sanctions on convicted sex offenders, which the Court acknowledged as numbering among the array of collateral consequences experienced by individuals.

    Also, it must be acknowledged that while Justice Kennedy’s opinion was joined by four colleagues (Justice Gorsuch did not take part), the three-member concurrence authored by Justice Alito (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas) contains some of the hyperbolic recidivism-related rhetoric found in prior opinions. MORE:
    http://ccresourcecenter.org/2017/06/20/scotus-invalidates-law-criminalizing-sex-offender-access-to-social-media/

    Packingham v. North Carolina
    U.S. Supreme Court, No. 15-1194
    Decision issued June 19, 2017:
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf

    Oral argument – Feb. 27, 2017 – archived audio and transcript:
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2016/15-1194

    Legal briefs:
    http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/2016_2017_briefs/15-1194.html

  40. AJ, ex CA

    I wonder how many NC cops are now free of desk duty scouring FB (I’m sure they never did any personal FB activities while “fighting crime” in this manner) and can go out and actually do law enforcement activities that help society. Unfortunately, they will probably just buttress the compliance-check jackboots.

    –AJ

    • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave

      And how much you want to bet that many of those scouring the Internet looking for CP are protesting a bit too ostentatiously about how “traumatizing” the experience is?

  41. Lovecraft

    Here is one last article from wral (out of Raleigh, NC) For those who aren’t familiar with them, they tend to be a very conservative group. This is an excellent opinion from their parent company, capitol broadcasting company (cbc). They really take it to the NC legislature about how they play politics in NC.

    http://www.wral.com/editorial-supreme-court-again-to-n-c-don-t-play-politics-with-the-constitution-/16775043/

    ***please do not copy and paste full articles. Moderator***

    • AJ, ex CA

      @Lovecraft
      Thanks for the WRAL article. It’s a nice piece, with a proper smackdown on NC politicos.

      –AJ

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 *