NC: On ‘ample alternative channels of communication,’ the First Amendment and social networking

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

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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. 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.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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 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.