ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

General News

NARSOL calls on Zuckerberg, Facebook to change policy

Having already contacted Mark Zuckerberg by letter dated June 27, 2017, NARSOL has now released a nationwide press release hoping to bring additional pressure upon the social media giant to cease its nearly nine-year-old practice of barring registered citizens from creating or maintaining Facebook user accounts. Full Press Release


How Would You Feel If Facebook Ended the Ban on Sex Offenders?

Join the discussion

  1. cool RC

    About time!!

  2. cool RC

    I also think all4consolaws should also write a letter with the 290 law where it say they can’t deny RSO right to do business with them. Maybe this will lead a lawsuit but I think now the time for us to write to facebook.

    • Joe

      And since Facebook TOS requires that all persons who use the service submit to California law for disputes, etc……………;-) IMO, they ran afoul of that law the minute that they started offering business pages. Had they just stuck with individuals using it for fun and sold ad space, there probably wouldn’t be an issue.

    • Mike

      Yes but the law gives the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, i don’t agree what facebook is doing but the law does not say offender has the right to business with any business even if the business tells you no, the law says the business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, go check it out

      • Bo

        What would need to change is being a registered SO would need to be a protected class.

  3. Paul

    What a ridiculously shortsighted position to take. What’s to prevent Facebook from agreeing with the premise of this but saying “OK. But to ensure public safety, we’re going to stamp the word ‘SEX OFFENDER’ in bright red, bold font, right across those profiles”

    • cool RC

      at least they are doing something about it

      • Paul

        My point is that this could cause more damage, than good. There is no constitutional guarantee to access Facebook as Facebook is a business. The SCOTUS ruling simply means that the government cannot prevent access; Facebook can do whatever they please, including stamping RC profiles

        • Cool RC

          Actually no, Facebook is no longer a PRIVATE business. They are now traded on Wall Street.

        • Paul

          I didn’t say private business; I said business. And the SCOTUS ruling doesn’t regulate the relationship between a business, and an individual. It only regulates the relationship between the government, and the individual.

        • New Person

          Actually, FB is excluding a free person from accessing FB.

          If ACSOL wanted a FB page to help promote its views, then FB would be discriminating against free peoples and the first amendment.

          Are registrants who have completed their punitive custody free people once again? If FB is excluding registrants from doing non-criminal activities, then it’s discriminating against a specific group of free people. Actually, it’s censoring free speech b/c if no registrant can defend him or herself on FB, then there’s no defending of any registrant.

        • AJ

          @New Person
          It seems you’re missing a key point about what is legal discrimination, and what is illegal discrimination. Businesses and people can discriminate against all sorts of groups of “free people.” But once such discrimination is based on protected-class element (, it becomes illegal.

          So to repeat: FB can deny service to anyone they wish, as long as it is not due to their protected-class status.

          As to Free Speech, FB is under no obligation to hear your speech, nor to repeat or rebroadcast your speech. You have a right to speak, and FB (for legal purposes, a corporation is also a “person”*) has a right to listen or not listen. FB chooses not to listen to your speech.

          *For those who think it wrong that a corporation is a person in the eyes of the law, I suggest you consider the repercussions were it not so. A corporation would then have no rights under the Constitution. The Gov’t could compel or prohibit corporate speech (1st), could search anywhere and everywhere within the business without a warrant (4th), could compel officers and employees of the company to testify (5th), etc.

        • New Person

          So why not push the envelope and sue FB? Intimate that registrants are a protected class.

          FB is denying a person who was once convicted, or in some cases, someone no longer convicted. But it was that conviction that put them on the registry. Maybe it’s time to deny all and everyone who’s ever been convicted before, including DUI’s.

          You said it earlier… if you exclude a specific subset, then you’re in violation of discrimination.

        • AJ

          @New Person
          “You said it earlier… if you exclude a specific subset, then you’re in violation of discrimination.”

          I have said no such thing. You’ve generalized very specific statements I said. If one discriminates based on the “subsets” known as protected classes, one is engaging in illegal discrimination. Note those last two words: illegal discrimination. Put another way, some discrimination is legal. RCs are in that batch, like it or not.

        • Timmr

          If facebook decided to exclude bank robbers, I think they could sue and win for damages based on arbitrariness and lack of case by case analysis that a former robber is going to steal the identities of facebook users.
          A person can put on shoes and shirts in a restaurant that requires it. A business can kick a disruptive shopper out of a store, but the shopper can control her actions and not be a disruption in the first place.
          A bank robber is not such a bad word. Really, think about it. Rob a bank, you are sometimes a hero. Sex offender is a bad word. Do anything good, you are still a demon. It’s all in a label. You can’t change the sex offender label, no matter how good you behave, and facebook takes advantage of that. Facebook is not judging you on your actions while on its service. It is judging your assumed inability to behave yourself. Who gave them that power? It is not a customary thing for businesses to do that. Indeed, this is how protected classes come about. The class is created first by the powerful denying a despised and powerless group access to goods and services enjoyed by the commons, and it is always base on lies. Lying as a businesses practice is another way to say fraud.

        • Joe

          Plus they use heavily regulated public infrastructure to operate their business……….

        • Joe

          But CALIFORNIA law might be an issue.

  4. Eric

    I doubt a predator would be using their correct name and address to register on FB anyway. The whole thing is just stupid. The one’s to be afraid of are going to do what criminals do: find a way around it. Honest people using their correct info aren’t going to be a problem.

    • Tired Of Hiding

      You are correct there. It is only the honest registered citizens who suffer the wrath of the ever increasing yearly punishments. The ones who do not follow those rules might actually be the smart ones…after all, it seems that following the “rules” doesn’t get you anywhere and only limits what you can do!

      FaceBook is run by a crazy born-again Christian so really who wants to be associated with it anyway – I DO NOT!

      • Harry

        I am a born again Christian.

        • BSS

          I am not a born again Christian. I was only born once…..but I’ll be back in another life. If you look at nature and how everything recycles: Water, dirt, viruses, flowers, trees and even the seasons. I think we do the same. Sorry to digress. But you just made me think. 😀

      • A little offensive, don't you think?

        Tired of Hiding – Not to derail the thread, but I’m also a born again Christian and find your last comment to be a bit unfair and offensive to the rest of us Christians. Like with any group of people, there are good and bad. If Zuckerberg is crazy (Assuming that’s who you were referring to), then so be it…but why make it sound like Christianity is the cause of that? You’re now labeling just as the hateful people that label RC’s are doing.

      • American Detained in America

        I too am a born again Christian. And to say being a born again Christian is the problem is very biased and incorrect. In fact, there is no evidence that either Zuckerberg or his COO Sheryl Sandberg are born again Christians.

  5. FRegistryTerrorists

    Governments should not be allowed to use Facebook since some of their citizens are prevented access. Should governments that violate that be sued and forced to stop?

    • Timmr

      Ah, it is like the president not being able to exclude people from commenting on his tweets, his account is public discouse, the government can’t stop discourse about itself. It is the same thing. The government is using facebook to communicate with the public and get responses; but facebook excludes a good portion of the population from the dicourse, so essentially the government is banning speech for many by using facebook. Brilliant.

    • Mike

      Dude it’s Zuckerberg that has to deny whom ever he decides the government can’t tell a business who he can or cannot deny or except. Look it up

      • FRegistryTerrorists

        Dude, you are responding to a very old comment! Still relevant today though. But I think you misunderstood what I was saying in that very, very brief comment.

        I did not say the government was telling Facebook who could or could not use their services.

        If there is a communication platform where it is known that N% of U.S. citizens cannot use it, should a government be allowed to use it? Personally, I say they should not. Seems pretty clear cut to me even though it probably isn’t.

        How about if a government knows about a very serious threat to public safety so they inform the public about it on Facebook. Except that some people are literally not allowed to see it. What happens if that threat kills those people? I say the government is liable.

        All that aside, government can and does tell Facebook and other companies plenty about whom they may and may not serve. Obviously Facebook could not say that they will not serve people who are black, for example. That is forced upon them by government.

  6. RP

    For them it is a Liability issue. If there is a way they feel safe then they might be less restrictive. In any case it can and should be argued that the Courts and Probation prohibit people from accessing that site if they feel they need to. Facebook, need not act like the police

    • Cool RC

      Facebook is the only website that bans RC.

      • bluewall

        Not true.. Megan’s Law database website also bans sex offenders from accessing

        • AJ

          Re: ML banning. Not in every State. I was actually surprised to learn CA banned its RCs like that.

          I think Cool RC was meaning social media websites. At least that’s what I inferred.

        • cool RC

          Maybe we should have a lawsuit on that one as well. Of other who aren’t on paper can see it we should see it as long as we are off paper.

      • Joe

        That rule also applies to other sites/services that Facebook owns and that list keeps on growing.

  7. Edie

    Here’s another injustice. Say a RC is also a shareholder of Facebook’s publicly traded stock. He/she can’t even go on their site despite being a part owner!

    • Timmr

      Just thought, I probably have some shares in facebook in my IRA.

    • AJ

      If I own shares of General Dynamics, I am not entitled to stroll around a nuclear submarine. Owning shares of a company does not entitle one to the products of that company. It does nothing but allow one to enjoy (or suffer) in the financial success (or failure) of the company. Period. Or does Warren Buffett (i.e. Berkshire Hathaway) owe me a ride on BNSF, a Dairy Queen cone, my car insured through GEICO, Benjamin Moore paint for my house, among other things? Maybe I should buy some shares in Ferrari…
      Note that any or all of these things being available to me through a third party (read: retailer) is an entirely different argument.

      • Cool RC

        ACtually no,
        you can’t call out a certain group from going to the public square.

  8. Steve

    Who really gives a crap about being able to access Facebook? Much bigger fish to fry.

    • kind of living

      I feel the same way Steve , hell with face book , I would much rather be able to rent a place that my family can be happy . or not have witch hunters spying on us as well as many other needs of all RSO’s , they should change the name of Facebook to Soap opera book , or witch hunter book, hell lets get our rights back

      • AJ

        Yeah, I’d much rather have my booked face off the Internet than have Facebook access.

    • Timmr

      I can care less about accessing facebook. I think it is a waste of time and worse, all those people walking like zombies, eyes glued to their smart phones, looking through the window into a fake world, while the beautiful real world and its real people are all around them. They are living in a confined space of a few square inches, their own prisons. Nonetheless the principle behind ending the ban is to end class discrimination against RC’s wherever it crops up. We should be able to make the choice ourselves as free citizens.
      The UN should censure facebook.

    • Cool RC

      Because it easier to go after smaller fish than bigger one.

  9. James

    Most people would be better off in life without Facebook, I myself think there are much bigger issues than being on Facebook, but if someone wants to sue go ahead. I will not give a dime on this one. I want off the registry and then out of this country in that order.

  10. Should be pay a fee then to access it

    Just an open thought here about FB being the public square or on the public square known as the internet: If you are going to restrict membership like they do, then need to be member driven by fee, not free. I say that because if you are using the public square known as the internet and making your membership free, then it really needs to be open to everyone regardless. I don’t care if you a publically traded company, like FB is, you need to be open to all regardless with free membership. To ensure your membership is what you want, you need to be fee driven then so you can allow who you want and remove who you want by your TOS.

  11. David Kennerly, Anti-Social Network Administrator

    Well, I just tried signing up on, a neighborhood-based social network and, having filled out a couple of fields, email and address, I got the following message back:

    “Address Problem

    We’re sorry. An issue with your address is blocking your ability to join Nextdoor.

    To fix this problem, please email us at, and we will follow up as quickly as possible.

    To speed up the process, it is helpful if you write to us using the same email address that you just used to sign up for Nextdoor and to confirm your name and full address (including unit number if you live at a multi-unit residence).

    Our apologies for the inconvenience.”

    Then, doing a Google search on NextDoors policies on sex offenders, I found this:

    “Address Verification. It is not OK to submit inaccurate registration information, or to register if you know you don’t meet our eligibility requirements. Providing false registration information violates our norms and could constitute a crime.
    We make efforts to enforce our eligibility requirements, but please do not assume these processes are perfect. For example, we require members to verify their status as real-world residential neighbors, and we use public registries to identify and block registered sex offenders in the United States (and other countries where permitted) from registering for personal residential accounts.”

    And all I was trying to do was to be neighborly! So, there’s that.

    • Steve

      So as I previously stated I could careless about Facebook but my wife not being able to join nextdoor would piss me off. That’s an interesting lawsuit to contemplate.

      • AJ

        What lawsuit would you propose? There is no obligation for a company to do business with anyone, as long as such refusal is not based upon a protected class element. “Sex Offender” (or any offense) is not a protected class.

    • They want to talk about you

      It is because they want to talk about you in their mtgs and make all sorts of assumptions, not be neighborly overall. It is an electronic neighborhood watch program.

      • Timmr

        If they let you in, they may find out you are really not the monster after all. What are they going to talk about then?

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *