IN: Facebook Sex Offenders Ban Ruled Unconstitutional By Indiana Court

INDIANAPOLIS — An Indiana law that bans registered sex offenders from using Facebook and other social networking sites that can be accessed by children is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Chicago overturned a federal judge’s decision upholding the law, saying the state was justified in trying to protect children but that the “blanket ban” went too far by restricting free speech.

The 2008 law “broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather than specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors,” the judges wrote. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Again I am not legal expert.. But this ruling in Indiana seems pretty good, but how does that work courts outside of California? Does the California court recognize it? or they operate in their own world?

Every time I see a win for our side it gives me hope. I have to wonder though; If Facebook has it in their T.O.S. that registrants are not allowed in their club, does this ruling over-ride their bylaw?

In the past several months, I signed up on Facebook mainly to locate family. I used a different first name for my profile and just yesterday, was blocked from the sight. I am an RSO no longer on probation or parole. There was no restrictions for using social media at my sentencing. I have wiped out any trace of Facebook use from my devices. Am I going to be arrested and charged for my Facebook use or will I be ok because of the current appeal?

Facebook is a privately owned company, but is is so broadly used and integral now to people communicating with each other, it is functionally a common carrier and should be treated as such. Like phone service. No one puts a blanket ban on us us using the phone. Yes, you can and should ban people from making harassing calls to children, but you can’t just ban someone from using a phone because the CEO of ATT doesn’t like them. Illegal as heck, same with the stupid Facebook ban. It doesn’t even make sense. A convicted but former sex offender gets banned? Someone who has maybe never used the service for illegal means? And yet some insurgent in Syria can have a Facebook page. Sorry Facebook you are big enough to be a public service, not one guy operating out of one’s garage. You can’t have it both ways.