ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


NY: Murphy Lauds Bill That Bans Lifetime Sex Offenders From Internet

The State Senate approved, 59-2, legislation prohibiting Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders from using the internet for social networking or for accessing pornographic sites involving sexual relation with minors for life. Full Article

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Good thing there’s already SCOTUS case dealing exactly with this.

The really annoying thing about all these types of laws is that people who wouldn’t re-offend don’t need this law to keep them law abiding . And those that will continue praying on people couldn’t care less that some law will punish them on top of the punishment they’ll receive for actually hurting someone.

What a waste.

They don’t even want to wait until Packingham is decided by SCOTUS?

I know I’ve said it a million times, but something has to be done about the ability of legislature to create laws targeting only those that committed a previous crime that prevents normal legal conduct. That is supposed to be handled during the sentencing phase of your trial where both sides present testimony and the judge handles punishment, rehabilitation, and protecting the public based on an evaluation of the individual and circumstances.

Maybe Judges need to file a lawsuit against Legislature about Equal Protection since Judges are required by law to base punishment, rehab, and protecting the public on the individual circumstances and cannot base it simply on the offense, and also must not make it longer, harsher, or more restrictive than required to suit that goal. Legislature apparently has no such restraints.

That’s the norm that needs to be established. The legislature can’t heap restrictions willy nilly upon what the court already decides in its thorough processes. It is quite simple, but until the rule is institutionalized, no incremental change for the good is ever safe. We live in a network, not on a pendulum. Things can swing any which way at any time. At best we are driving forward with the windshield blocked and all we can see is in the rear view mirror. The branches of government need to do their separate jobs or there is no peace.

This has already been nixed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. A child molester, J.I., is on community supervision for life because he molested his 3 daughters, all who were under the age of 12. The state sought to impose a total Internet blackout on J.I. The N.J. Supreme Court has ruled that total denial of Internet access triggers a 1st Amendment free speech liberty interest.

Packingham was decided in favor of the 1st Amendment rights of sex offenders. The court ruled that states could impose narrowly tailored rules to restrict specific behaviors on social media such as not contacting minors, not collecting intelligence on any minor, not accessing/viewing/possessing pornography, not using social media for any sexually-oriented purpose, or not using the Internet as a direct instrument of inflicting physical harm on another.

I doubt this bill will go anywhere now that Packingham has been decided. If anything, many states may be forced to roll back restrictions on Internet access for sexual offenders and instead grant Internet access so long as it’s not used in the ways I’ve mentioned in the previous paragraph.
The way I see it, Packingham v. North Carolina attaches a definite and authoritative First Amendment liberty interest to Internet access.

I kept reading and rereading this thinking I didnt read something right like maybe for those who have lifetime supervision (although thats still wrong), but a total ban of social networking and sites involving sexual relations with minors for level 2 and 3 rso’s? Isnt the second one illegal anyway? That has to be like 90% of the rso population. How about the packingham case? Surely this senator cant be this stupid….wouldnt a favorable ruling for us on packingham shut this law down completely? I wonder if he did this knowing the ruling on packingham would be coming down in the next 2 weeks to make himself look ultra hard on rso’s without any real long term ramifications. The timing just seems really weird. This is a terrible law and if it somehow survives packingham it will surely create more victims than it saves.

This law is actually even worse then they say – It effects Level 2 and Level 3 PLUS any one who used the internet PLUS any one whose victim is under 18. So even if you are a Level 1 who never has used the internet, if your victim was 17 you’re covered by it…

Also they could probably argue a site like this is “Social Networking” and ban use of it.

Finally – Thankfully – The Assembly seems more level headed and has been slow to pass laws like this and hopefully nothing will change this time as they end there session next week and then 6 months off, and then 6 months to hope this bill dissapears.

I think this is one more tidbit showing the utter contempt legislators/legislatures have for RCs and for the judiciary. Anything they can dream up they will pile onto an RC in the name of public safety, and they really couldn’t care less what the judiciary has said or does. They’ll just keep passing laws and keep tweaking them which keeps RCs having to spend money on legal help. Bad laws can be passed faster than they can get reviewed by the judiciary….

I really hope Packingham comes out soon, and with the 8-0 decision all the SCOTUS-watchers have opined. If/When it does, hopefully it *might* (though I doubt it) start making some of these things be tailored to the offense and offender. If only that horrible ex post facto clause didn’t get in the way of these Dudley-Do-Right legislators who know how to fix everything for all of us.


Where have you seen the opinion it will be an 8-0 decision? I can’t find that anywhere…

Also I really hope the Opinion is clear that the right to use the internet is a free speech issue and cannot be blocked and narrowly tailored decision that basically says Packingham can’t be prosecuted but everyone else can…

Though banning is certainly outside acceptability, one may not want to use social networks anyway:

I have been anti-social-networks for a long, long time, even though my state doesn’t foolishly ban me from them. Anyone who thinks they are anything besides data-mining monsters needs to do some research.


If they actually used this type of tech and were found out (and eventually they would be), people would be jailed and FB would likely go bankrupt overnight from general public outcry. They’re current user base is over 1/4th of the entire planets population. Every nation on the planet would go after them if for no reason than that FB would be spying on world leaders.

I disagree, because so many people believe the mantra of, “I don’t care, because I’m not doing anything wrong.” Well, I’m not doing anything wrong when I’m in my house, but I still like to draw the blinds now and then. I’m not doing anything wrong when using the bathroom, but I still like privacy.

And if you think FB or any other social networking company is going to be dropped like a hot rock anytime soon, I suggest you read this:

They know how to engineer things to keep you coming back. Toss in that it’s free and ubiquitous–you can’t even comment on many of the articles ACSOL references without a FB account–it’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

LE and attorneys know the first thing you do when investigating anyone is grab their social media information. It’s a treasure trove of info from people who “aren’t doing anything wrong”…until they happen to.

I also think FB’s numbers are slightly inflated as to membership. How many of the users are individuals? How many are businesses, corporations, churches, universities, etc? Sure, lion’s share is certainly individuals, but not all of them. Also, is that active accounts, or aggregate? Don’t get me wrong, I fully understand what a behemoth FB is, I just think the numbers are inflated and/or misrepresented. 1 billion “users” does not necessarily–and in this case certainly doesn’t–mean 1 billion “individual human beings.”


The numbers are inflated even more than that. If I had to guess I would think at least 20-25% are non individual accounts such as businesses, non profits, and most importantly bots. For those who dont know, bots are used for many things such as liking products or businesses and commenting. Businesses often times pay for their services to over inflate hype of their products or business or in some cases pay for negative comments against their competitors. A week or 2 ago one bot farm got busted by authorties in the Philippines if i remember correctly.

Having said that, fb is still the industry leader in social networking. I wonder what paths can be paved with a favorable packingham verdict like many of us expect. That verdict will almost certainly be released this coming monday or the following monday. I for one believe that with a packingham win we will eventually be allowed on fb a short ways down the road.

Keep in mind, fb did not intially ban registrants. If I remember correctly, when fb was still a private company the government forced them to ban registrants. It was explained to me and I forget the intricacies of it, but the crux of it had something to do with it being a private company. Now that it is a public company, it no longer needs to abide by that ruling. As we all know, no one in fb is going to jump to our rescue and try and reform their policies because of the obvious reasons. Relief via the court system, like usual, seems the most likely vechicle to relief.

Facebook has always been a front for the alphabet agencies and our computer monitors are one big black mirror. Covering the camera lens won’t stop the spying.

I am a RC do not use social media sites and do not understand the purpose of them.

I think anyone required to register should be banned from paying taxes .

Now that is a law that I would support! (especially in California)

Doggone right!! We sure as heck can’t vote and have any voice in a government that is totally hostile toward us and our basic civil and human rights. We shouldn’t have to pay a cent of taxes. Whatever happened to “taxation without representation”?

Anyone in CA can vote as long as they are not in prison. I vote every year and also have a voice in politics since I also contact my state and federal representatives often to voice my opinions.

I do that, too, for all sorts of issues. The only way to stop being a registrant is to take back our citizenship.

When I read garbage like this, my impression is they are not worried about stopping a future crime, it is to stop communication and the right to knowledge. If the real concern was crimes then they would have a program to help offenders reintegrate into society. That would be cheaper on the tax payers also.

When one digs into this kind of nonsense there usually is a small group behind it. It is to feed their personal issues at our expense. Where is the data that there is a problem here. Idiots!

Kind of related is an article and TED talk about addiction from a while back ( This speaks volumes about the benefits of rehabilitation and reintegrating people into society.


I wonder how many people realize that this site ( is a social networking site. The new york law has banned level 2 and 3 sex offenders from gathering here. They are no longer allowed to read and stay informed and leave comments on this site. – how long will it be before any site that a person can leave comments and have an interchange of ideas will be considered social networking? A news site for example. If you have to register and have the ability to leave comments, isn’t that social networking as well? This is a violation of not the right to gather, but also the 1st amendment. Is it not or am I way off base?

Thankfully the assembly hasn’t passed this heinous bill yet…

“A news site for example. If you have to register and have the ability to leave comments, isn’t that social networking as well?”

This was specifically part of Packingham and came up in oral argument.


A total Internet ban?? That is so ridiculous I can barely control myself to comment on it!
Aside from the obvious, you couldn’t own an iPhone or any other smart phone that might use the internet to store the photo you just took to the cloud.
No more email of any kind.
No more smart appliances nor thermostats (no turning on your home lights from your phone).
No wireless security cameras that are tied to a website.
No more OnStar help from your car.
No more Kindle nor any other e-book readers (how would you get the books?)
And of course you couldn’t work (assuming you were actually able to get a real job to begin with) at any company that had computers which connected to the internet.
No selling on eBay.
No self employment (how could you have even the smallest business without the internet?)
No online banking.
No paying bills online (back to writing checks for everything).
etc. etc. etc.

I was coping until IML was signed into law. Now I am outraged! When will this insanity cease?

… Hopefully this weekend’s conference will help calm me down …

Not to mention that you now need the internet to search for a job…newpaper classifieds are now obsolete

I’ve already put out a message to my prominent Sex Offender Attorney in Albany to get her scoop on this.
So I’ll let you know what her thoughts are.

Is the attorney Kathy?

I have a few things I’d like to potentially raise. PK if you can get my email from the moderator and would like to compare notes maybe we can do a few things together…

Thankfully assembly Weprin who heads corrections or codes (i can’t remember but these bill all need to pass those 2 committees) seems semi rational in his approach to legislation.

Dear Moderator if you could please forward my email to the gentleman from Scotus, I would appreciate it.

Perhaps we could consider some possibilities, however, as I’ve mentioned in the past, I’ve pretty much given-up any hope of a normal life and career in the United States. I’m actually married now and settled into a new country altogether. I, like the illegals, am only here for a short while, for the money, and that’s it!

Has NY held you back as well?

Response Received:
“I think it doesn’t have a chance of passing the Assembly or becoming law, plus it would be unconstitutional. So I wouldn’t worry about it. There are a ton of bills like that in the Senate that don’t have a chance.”

Would love to talk to your attorney or you. I have a few challenges I think could work tbh

“…or for accessing pornographic sites involving sexual relation with minors for life.”

Incredible how unintentionally hilarious these nincompoops really are! As if “… accessing pornographic sites involving sexual relation with minors” exists legally, or can be accessed legally, by anyone at all.

Apparently, the FBI can legally access and operate child pornography websites.


“Our law enforcement agencies need more effective tools to help protect the most vulnerable people in our community from being preyed upon by sex offenders.”

How about a tool that forces parents to parent their kids? What would government and law enforcement do if a parent was allowing their child to hang around strip clubs and adult book stores?

With that being said…

“This bill will ensure that sex offenders required to register for life can no longer use the internet to threaten the health and safety of our children.”

When is the media going to start to pointing out to these turds that 90% of kids are abused by someone who is within a child’s circle? Or that nearly 68% of abusers are immediate family members? Stranger danger bills like these don’t protect kids. They only prove to further alienate an already unprotected class.


Isn’t this the same guy who pushed so hard for IML?

He seems like a real piece of work, I mean look at he’s face! Like he is gleeful or something by doing things that will hurt other people.

I live in DC and there’s been a lot of talk about how the baseball practice shooting was politically motivated, by some whacked-out liberal DEMOCRAT. I think a lot of the commentary does hold water- ya piss off a group of people, and keep up the oppression by denying people their dignity, sooner or later something WILL break.

But Mr. Murphy was “lauding” the idea of banning Internet access to ANY AND ALL RSO’s.
You know- I don’t like that guy.

yeah, he can go hide now because it would not pass muster given the Packingham ruling. They may be able to tailor it for specificity, but a blanket is not going to work.

For those of you who do not live in New York State let me share my views since I live and pay taxes here.
New York State is an area of 54,5560 miles. It has about 19 million inhabitants.
New York City is an area of 302 miles. It has a population of 8 .5 million.
Deduct New York City from the State and you have 11 million people in area of 55,5258 miles spread across
voting Republican, loving Trump, making a living from the huge NYS jail system and rednecks just the same as the trash in other states that run on the sex-offender ticket. New York City politicians don’t have to appease the hicks and trash. The City is more liberal and civilized. That’s up to Murphy and his pals desperate for votes.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x