NC: North Carolina Kicks Sex Offenders Out of Libraries, Parks, and Fairs

A new sex offender law took effect in North Carolina on Thursday, restricting offenders’ freedom of movement and association by barring them from libraries, recreational parks, pools, and fairs. The law is designed to replace a previous measure that a federal court ruled unconstitutional in April. It will do nothing to stop sex crimes while continuing to isolate, penalize, and ostracize fully rehabilitated offenders who are attempting to rejoin society. Full Editorial

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

God have mercy on those Baptist.

But if minors are abused by family, teachers, coaches & music tutors, how is this new law going to reduce their sexual abuse. It’s not. Those children are NOT being helped by this nonsense.

This is a perfect example of why we cannot depend entirely on having the courts resolve the anti-RC hysteria. Court decisions are like the game of whack-a-mole: hit one bad law and another pops up in a never ending cycle.

FACT: If the public did not see us as monsters, politicians wouldn’t have incentive to pass endless anti-RC bills.

FACT: the public sees us as monsters, so politicians will keep trying to pass laws against us. And when one law is struck down, another pops up slightly rewritten.

SAD FACT: I know a lot of my fellow RCs say that it is a waste of time to show up to events and speak up. I know that it is often because they are scared.

FACT: I have seen people’s attitude changes when we are willing to put a human face on the RC hysteria.

FACT: It’s easier for people to believe stereotypes of a people group when they don’t know anyone personally in that group, BUT when they know someone in that group who breaks the stereotype, they are less likely to continue to believe the stereotype. You can read about a personal encounter I had here:

Yes, we need to continue fighting in the courts.

But we also need to show up, stand up, and speak up to leaders and groups in the halls of government, and to other individuals when appropriate.

As the attitudes of the public and lawmakers change, less bad laws will be submitted and existing bad laws will be whittled away.

Does anyone else have a problem with “Including but not limited to” of this law? what exactly does it mean? Seems like a loophole to be abused by law enforcement to me.

We need to get together with Canada and make tiering a priority. Their researchers are on the right track. Canada was an abolitionist country before the US. It makes them superior to us in that respect. It’s not the Canadian researchers fault that California politicians do not take all of their recommendations seriously. Hanson and his team have said in their literation that after 17 crime-free years, the risk of committing a sex crime is that of someone in the general population. They have said that the number of years in the community reoffense-free should be taken into account in registry systems. It’s not the fault of the Canadian researchers or CASOMB who support their research that California politicians, other than the few who bring these bills to the committees who are our friends, don’t support tiering with a 17 year maximum tier duration. It’s the fault of polticians like that Joel guy who votes for every restriction against registrants and the likes of people like him funded by Crime Victims United. It’s not the fault of the politicians who are our friends that they don’t initially propose the 17 year max duration because as we see, even the tiering with a lieftime category is not getting passed. That must be what is meant by incrementalism. Not all the research can be made into policy all at once apparently.

After what their neighbor Georgia went through with their own courts and the Federal courts, I would have to say that the North Carolina Legislature may be suffer from a profound learning disability. Georgia went from having the craziest restrictions in the country to having some of the least onerous if you happen to be someone who was convicted before like 2006. Even for those still subject to some of the crazy regulations, my understanding is that Georgia totally eliminated the “internet identifier” requirement.

My question is who does this pertain to? People on probation and parole or anyone who must register? I take my kids to the library all the time and we may be moving to North Carolina next year. I’ve been out since 2007 and have never had probation or parole.