A recent Indiana statute prohibits most registered sex offenders from using social networking websites, instant messaging services, and chat programs. John Doe, on behalf of a class of similarly situated sex offenders, challenges this law on First Amendment grounds. We reverse the district court and hold that the law as drafted is unconstitutional. Though content neutral, we conclude that the Indiana law is not narrowly tailored to serve the state’s interest. It broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather than specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors. * * * Court Decision: John Doe -v- Prosecutor, Marion County
IN: RSOs and Social Media Prohibition
- ·January 23, 2013
- ·9 Comments
Outstanding!
You know something.
America might actually get back on track if the Constitution was actually followed. It has been abused for so long that it might not seem possible but it really is the only thing that makes America different from any other country.
I agree. The constitution works when it is actually followed. However, as long as politicians ignore it for their own agendas, I’m not holding my breath as far as America getting back on track.
I am more optimistic than you, Anon. The fact is our country has fallen off the constitutional path more than once, but we eventually find our way back. The significant problem, of course, is the many people who are harmed along the way. In the case of California registrants, it is now more than 100,000 people who are being directly harmed and then possibly another 500,000 people indirectly as it affects family members and loved ones as well.
And if Prop 35 had had it’s way it would have added another, what? 3 or 4 hundred thousand to that list to be classified as ‘sex offenders’?
It seems to be a wildly swinging pendulum tug-o-war right now for which direction it is going to go, as far as human rights are concerned.
Makes it hard to predict where it will end up.
Fingers crossed that this cultural war will end up a victory for sanity and constitutional rights, but fully prepared to leave the country if it all goes wrong.
I hope you are right. The number of people affected by these laws is growing daily and it is unsustainable in its present form. I am glad that there are people like you helping to get us back on track!
now if we can get facebook to change their policy on that !
Facebook used to have the legal authority to block anyone they wish from using the service. However, that was when Facebook was a private corporation. Fast forward… they are now a publicly traded corporation. That means, i can buy shares, making me part owner. That should, in theory give me the right to use the service. However, even if i owned shares, i would not be able to use the service?
Good point nicholas…also the discrimination by casebook..whatever ..
is blatant and glaring …they might as well said Jews blacks Arabs
Indians and so on when they group discrimination …its still wrong.