EFF to Supreme Court: Strike Social Media Ban for Sex Offenders

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

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

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.