A couple of weeks ago, I joined 16 law professors in an amicus brief (authored by Eugene Volokh and several of his students) urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of North Carolina v. Packingham. Full Article
Related posts
-
MT: Montana’s Porn Age Verification Law Is Headed to Court
Source: reason.com 10/23/24 “Invoking the innocence of children is not…a magic incantation sufficient for legislatures to... -
NC: Appeals court rejects challenge to North Carolina sex offender registration law
Source: portcitydaily.com 8/12/24 Three judges on the Fourth Circuit of Appeals unanimously upheld the constitutionality of... -
SCOTUS Makes It Easier for Victims of Retaliatory Arrests To Vindicate Their First Amendment Rights
Source: reason.com 6/20/24 When someone claims to have been arrested in retaliation for constitutionally protected speech,...
What’s the point if Facebook kicks you off anyway?
Amazing that there are people that try to argue banning sex offenders from all of the major social media sites isn’t a violation of free speech. I would love to hook them up to a lie detector and see if they actually believe what they are saying…if only lie detectors actually worked.
Sounds crazy but if North Carolina can ban RSOs from the New York Times website, they probably could ban them from this website unless californiarso.org has a warning that says 18 years or older
all I can say is the ones that want to do more restrictions are the ones that have not got caught doing sex offender things
man our country is taking the worst aspects of every other society and applying them to its people and government.beginning with the corruption in Romes Republic that was the downfall of Rome to the prison sewer system of Stalin,the persecution of the people in Germany,the wall that kept them from escaping the persecutions, the persecution and discrimination of all the different people in this country,the censorship and control of the Internet in China and other countries,the public shamings in so many different societies,and the mass incarceration and inhalation of undesirables in the inquisitions and medieval times and I could go on and on. the USA has declared war on many different types of citizens all throughout its history we’re are just the next and easiest to declare war against in this day and age. its war and if it gets much worse there’s going to be mass casualties on their side as well as ours.
I was on Facebook for 4 years and one day, i was gone. I am pretty sure that someone dropped a dime on my because I have had at least one and probably more “internet stalkers’ who have damaged by former business, even in Europe. What I have wondered about for a while is why doesn’t someone sue Facebook in California for denying access to business services? I suspect that the State is not bending over backwards to enforce those discrimination laws as far as housing etc go. I have heard of some landlords getting around the law by saying that they refused to rent to someone not because of them being on the bad boy list but because of the underlying criminal conviction. Yeah, right. Bic difference. The big issue is that it is pretty clear that in many cases, these online services have become essential business tools., to the point where Facebook et al. solicit businesses to use their services. The reason that I ask about doing this in California is that the last time that I checked, Facebook’s, terms of service require the application of California law in an disputes. 😉
Reporting yourself to Facebook is the only way to have your ghost profile deleted. Otherwise like it or not, we are all on Facebook, we just might not be allowed to use it.
If you are a sex offender and you are using Facebook, you are also a thief. You are stealing services from a company that has chosen not to serve you.
We should be working together to ruin Facebook and their executives, not find ways to steal their services.
Renny writes “If you are a sex offender and you are using Facebook, you are also a thief. You are stealing services from a company that has chosen not to serve you.”
Check out PC 290 penal code of California. It is registrants who have had their access to services illegally denied and stolen from them by FaceBook. Those thieves at FaceBook should have to pay up to 25k per registrant as outlined in PC 290. During some the Presidential debates, questions from the audience could only be asked by those on FaceBook. FaceBook has taken on the role of providing vital services. Services for running a business, getting information from government agencies with FaceBook pages, and participation in the political process, just to name a few.
Renny writes “Facebook’s rules about sex offenders has nothing to do with PC290. It states CONVICTED, not registered and it applies to every person ever CONVICTED of a sex offense worldwide, not just CA, not just the US.”
When ‘Convicted Sex offenders’ and ‘Registered Sex offenders’ become mutually exclusive groups, then you would have a point. PC 290’s non-discrimination clause prohibits FB’s Terms of Service as outlined in PC 290. FaceBook’s real headquarters is in California. 25k per registrant is available potentially as stated in PC 290. This really has everything to do with California PC 29O. Of course FaceBook’s Terms are not going to specifically mention the law code they are violating. That would be just wrapping it all up in a bow for us for when this lawsuit can finally get off the ground.