Yesterday, EFF and its allies Public Knowledge and the Center for Democracy & Technology filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down under the First Amendment a North Carolina law that bans “registered sex offenders” (RSOs) from using all Internet social media. This law sweeps far too broadly. Social media are one of the most important communication channels ever created. People banned from social media are greatly handicapped in their ability to participate in the political, religious, and economic life of our nation. Full Article
Related posts
-
IN: Interesting Stay Dispute in Seventh Circuit Minors’-Access-to-Porn Case
Source: reason.com 8/20/24 From Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Rokita, decided Friday by Judges Frank Easterbrook... -
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... -
TX: Texas Sues Pornhub for Failing to Check IDs
Source: news.yahoo.com 2/28/24 The first age verification lawsuit against a major web porn purveyor is here....
Great! I dont blame the folks in NC for wanting to defend their constitutional rights; However, should they lose at the SC level then every state will be jumping all over this, California’s legal victory will have been for not!
Unfortunately, there are too many mentally sick human beings ruling in the courts, rulings that are beyond Un-American, out-right dangerous and oppressive.
Is the USA turning into Iran or Saudi Arabia?
The amount of absolute Hatred and Stupidity some judges possess that allows them to think it is OK to punish people for the rest of their lives while LYING and saying that it’s not blatant punishment. Absolutely disgusting. I really question why I moved to this country. It’s going to hell at this rate. Hopefully Janice and the efforts of EFF/ACLU prevail. Otherwise, the rest of the population will eventually suffer as well. We MUST make these judges’s names public and publicly SHAME these in-humane characters that uphold these insane, archaic, ‘banishment’ laws.
Does anyone have more information on this as quoted by this article?
“In Wisconsin, for example, all RSOs must wear electronic shackles 24/7 for the rest of their lives. This includes RSOs who have successfully completed their sentences and terms of supervised release. ”
Is this true? I can’t find any information online.
Thank you.
Can they just sue Facebook ?
A ruling like this would pretty much be meaningless unless states are not longer permitted to require disclosure internet identifiers and companies like Facebook are no longer permitted to violate themes of their own home state of California which are applied to all users via their TOS.
I read the brief they provided SCOTUS.
I don’t understand why they fail to mention that the law simply won’t fulfill the states intent at all. Not even a little.
They ban RSO’s from any social sites to prevent sex offenders from trying to hook up with kids and make any RSOs face a felony for just going to a social site.
Ok…so an RSO that is intent on breaking existing felony laws about luring children won’t care one second about an additional felony for accessing the sites. Not at all. So that no-social-site law will ONLY affect law abiding RSOs and not the RSOs that don’t want to follow the laws to begin with.
Why don’t any of these types of law suits address that mistake in the original thinking when creating laws to prevent other laws from being broken???
Specifically, to quote the SCOTUS brief they submitted:
***It goes without saying that protecting minors
against those who would perpetrate sexual violence
against them is a compelling government interest of
paramount importance. But prohibiting access to all
social networking because some individuals could possibly
obtain information that could then be used to perpetrate
criminal acts surely “burns down the house to
roast the pig.” Reno, 521 U.S. at 882.***
But, IT DOESN’T EVEN ROAST THE PIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No “PIG” will be the least bit deterred or prosecuted under this law, only law abiding RSO’s that make mistakes. The “PIGS” will be fine unless caught for breaking the laws that already existed to protect luring children.
How is this so hard to understand and be included in court arguments???
I couldn’t find a place to comment on the original article.
I think the same way Chris F. I am Very conservative, and my fellow conservatives just don’t get it. Banning RSO from social media, parks resident restrictions, thinking it will make everyone safer. that is the kind of regulation, is the same logic they fight against the people who want gun control my fellow conservatives claim that having control won’t reduce that gun violence because you can’t regulate the heart of people. they claim that all the control in the world won’t stop a determined person from shooting people. they fight against government violating constitutional right. And they are right regulating will not stop people from shooting if they want to. Nor will stopping banning all RSO from the places mentioned above will stop a determined RSO from re offending and like you said Chris only law abiding RSO will obey it. No violating the constitution is going to make anyone safer anywhere.