ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

National

SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that a North Carolina law which prohibits all registrants from accessing commercial social networking websites used by minor children violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“This is a tremendous victory for the registrants of North Carolina as well as registrants throughout the nation,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for the first time that registrants have First Amendment rights including the use of social media websites including Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.”

In its decision, the Court noted that the broad wording of the North Carolina law bars access “not only to commonplace social media websites but also to websites as varied as Amazon.com, Washingtonpost.com, and Webmd.com.” The Court also noted that “(e)ven convicted criminals – and in some instances especially convicted criminals – might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.”

The Court stated clearly their belief that the sexual abuse of a child is “a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people.” The Court also stated clearly that states may pass valid laws in order to protect children and other victims of sexual assault from abuse. The court then ruled that the North Carolina law did not legitimately serve the purpose of protecting children and others from abuse.

Also in its decision, the Court noted the “troubling fact” that the North Carolina law imposed severe restrictions on persons “who have already served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system.” The Court also noted that “(i)t is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used by persons who have completed their sentences.”

“We are encouraged by today’s wise decision of the U.S. Supreme Court,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein. “We are hopeful that this wisdom can be extended to other decisions in the near future.”

Although today’s decision was unanimous, three of the Court’s nine justices – Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas — entered a concurring decision which agreed that the North Carolina law violated the First Amendment, but focused upon the “grave risk” that repeat sex offenders pose to children. In their concurrence, the justices repeated the myth that registrants have a high risk of re-offense. Specifically, the justices stated that “(w)hen sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.”

“It is disappointing that three members of the U.S. Supreme Court continue to repeat a myth which has been disproved by decades of research,” stated Bellucci. “That research, including the findings of Dr. Karl Hanson, has overwhelmingly concluded that registrants have a very low rate of re-offense.”

Opinion

Earlier version:

US Supreme Court strikes down NC sex offender social media ban

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from using Facebook or other social networking sites that minors can join. Full Article

Related

Opinion analysis: Court invalidates ban on social media for sex offenders

Supreme Court says sex offenders can access social media

Supreme Court says even sex offenders get to use Facebook

Articles as of 6/19 (Google)

 

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.  
 
104 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf Kennedy delivered the opinion Alito (surprisingly) concurred. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. So I guess we won 8-0. Sounds like a slam dunk if Im reading that correctly, I think its going to shut down the social media bans across the country. This lopsided opinion likely will keep states from making and enforcing similar laws in… Read more »

After reading and digesting the opinion, all justices ruled in favor 5 unequivocally and 3 somewhat reluctantly (alito, roberts, and thomas) Alito was upset with the references to the internet being the public forum of today and that the 5 justices were so easy to give full protection to registrants. He suggested that recividists and high levels registrants could still be targeted. He also cited mckune v lile. Alito: While I thus agree with the Court that the particular law at issue in this case violates the First Amendment, I am troubled by the Court’s loose rhetoric. After noting that… Read more »

Unfortunately, the minority also added this old thorn in our side, like you mentioned, from McKune V Lile: ***** Repeat sex offenders pose an especially grave risk to children. “When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.” McKune, supra, at 33 (plurality opinion); see United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2013) (slip op., at 8–9). ***** That is a horribly vague line to put in there. More likely to commit a sex assault than a bank robber maybe?… Read more »

The McKune case is now tainted with the now known research done by Dr Ira and Tara Ellman reporting the case used false facts.

The fact that the SCOTUS is still using McKune really paves way for a case using unverified information as facts that are now discovered to be false. Notice how they interchangeably stated “repeat sex offenders” and “convicted sex offenders”? There is a difference between a repeat sex offender and a convicted sex offender. A convicted sex offender could have been convicted of only one incident.

Re: high recidivism rate
United States v. Kebodeaux cites Smith, so it is once again put into a Supreme Court Decision. The Packingham attorneys chose not to bring it up in here in order not to embarrass Kennedy. Obviously a win for them. If the court takes Snyder v Michigan that issue will be clear to Alito if he reads that part. It remains a grievous issue to still be resolved at the highest level to keep lower courts and legislators from continuing to believe and cite this as the reason to justify punishment for registrants.

This is yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge!!!!

8 – 0 decision!

I haven’t read the pdf, but an article I read noted that Roberts, Alito, and Thomas agreed that the law violates free speech, but said Kennedy’s opinion went too far in suggesting states have limited role in restricting unlimited access from “dangerous sexual predators”.

Perhaps if the actual data the shows 95% or better S O do not re-offend were sent to these 3 judges, they might read it. I am sure their animus ways will prevent them from looking it up themselves.

I am glad to see “We The People” still have a place.

Along with Dr Ira and Tara Ellmans research work that debunks the source that all the courts have been using.

Slam dunk baby!!! I just saw this on the 12pm mid day TV news and just had to run on here. Lol. Almost fell off my chair. Hopefully SCOTUS can keep knocking down the rest of the cases pending or anything else that comes their way related to us.

Now, if we can get IML to SCOTUS and maybe the registry?

The Snyder case is gonna be seen by the SCOTUS soon, hopefully. That has implications that probably affects the IML if Snyder wins.

Based on the strong wording of the Court’s opinion in Packingham, I think not only is Snyder going to be heard, but they it to head off the mass of suits that are percolating throughout the country and headed their way. I’m hopeful SCOTUS will take the “long way around” on Snyder and address the punishment items themselves, and not just rule on the ex post facto issue. They go somewhat hand-in-hand, but I’d prefer the situation that hits the scheme (punishment items), not just the amendments to the scheme (ex post facto). IOW, strike down the punishments themselves, and… Read more »

“It is well established that, as a general rule, the Gov-ernment “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coali-tion, 535 U. S., at 255”

hopefully, this statement that was in the opinion can be used where states created laws requiring SO to provide user names, etc… as anonymous free speech is protected.

Justice has been served!

Amazing! An 8-0 ruling should be heard like a thunderstorm across the nation. I have a feeling this is the first of many SO laws that will be struck down. Also, did anyone else catch the insanity in the final paragraph? “In 2013, Gerding said one of his clients had not been able to attend his child’s T-ball games because of the restrictions. The client’s wife had planned to go to the game and use Skype so her husband could watch without being on the premises, but a sheriff told him that would violate the 2008 law.” So the husband… Read more »

Finally SCOTUS Speaks Truth!

* * *
It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government

“may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.”

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,
535 U. S., at 255.

That is what North Carolina has
done here. Its law must be held invalid.

The judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court is
reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

The hope for our future liberation lies in Kennedy’s statement: “Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.”
TROUBLING FACT. I’ll say it is!
Hopefully this will be an issue before the Court soon. Lawyers get moving; this sound like an invitation.

LOL, I submitted my comment that mimics your before I could see your post. 🙂

I am POSITIVE we would also have Gorsuch on our side based on his past rulings before joining SCOTUS.

MAGA!

I interpreted that comment to mean the basis for the suit filed by packingham didnt explicitly involve that aspect, but i think that is a telling statement about how the scotus feels about most of the laws registrants have imposed on them…. I think the writing is on the wall.

But keep in mind, Face book is a private provider and they currently have a policy that bans ALL RSO’s. It doesn’t matter if the conviction was a misdemeanor or a felony or if it was 2 months ago or 20 years ago. Facebook is legally allowed to prohibit service to who they select, just like Six Flags prohibits all RSO’s. So even with this U.S. Supreme Court decision remember in Virginia all nicknames and aliases plus all email addresses of RSO’s must be registered with the Virginia State Police (or face a felony) and then the VSP-IT Department sends… Read more »

Yes, it is troubling that there is still a long way to go. In addition to a probation violation, if someone is off probation and registered, many places require ALL EMAIL addresses be reported to registration immediately, and those are forwarded to Facebook for removal from Facebook. If a cop finds a sex offender with a Facebook account linked to an email address they don’t know about, that could be a registration violation and years of imprisonment. This is why it is PARAMOUNT that we get a challenge to the entire post-probation/parole registry scheme that inhibits our freedom. Thankfully, per… Read more »

“It is well established that, as a general rule, the Gov-ernment “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coali-tion, 535 U. S., at 255”

hopefully, this statement that was in the opinion can be used where states created laws requiring SO to provide user names, etc… as anonymous free speech is protected.

Mary Davye Devoy – the real logical next step is to challenge the collection of internet identifiers based on this decision. Arguing that since you cannot take away first amendment rights, and anonymous free speech is covered by the first amendment then you cannot collect these identifiers because it violates one’s consitutional right to anonymous free speech ACLU v. Miller, Northern District, Georgia, ACTION 1:96-cv-2475-MHS Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, Syllabus, US Supreme Court, cert to Supreme Court of Ohio, No. 93-986, 1995 “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.… Read more »

Fakebook seems to be in violation of CA Penal codes 290.46(2)(H), CA 290.46(4)(A) and 290.46(B):  (2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited: (H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.  (4) (A) Any use of information disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes other than those provided by paragraph (1) or in violation of paragraph (2) shall make the user liable for the actual damages, and any amount that… Read more »

I agree

I also agree this issue is ripe for a civil suit against Facebook. We would need a gofundme account to gather enough seed money to begin to file a suit. The biggest problem is that Facebook’s lawyers will ensure this will cost us a large amount of attorney’s fees. We would need an attorney that is willing to get most of their money from Facebook only if we have a win. I never ask you for advice here, but Janice, Chance, any opinions on this issue? Does anyone have any legal opinion as to the reasons why we would not… Read more »

I was thinking maybe a formation of a dedicated legal entity for this very purpose. Having the entity sue, not the people. If somehow we lose, it’d be the entity that would lose. We need both tax and business experts on this subject as well.

This may require more research.

While Facebook’s actions could fail to adhere to a California law, the SORNA guidelines being federal may over-ride that and provide immunity from civil action.

See this part of SORNA:
§16915b. Checking system for social networking websites

“A civil claim against a social networking website, including any director, officer, employee, parent, contractor, or agent of that social networking website, arising from the use by such website of the National Sex Offender Registry, may not be brought in any Federal or State court.”

@Chris F
So FB can scrape the National Registry. To my knowledge, there is not enough data on the NR alone for FB to figure out my email address. Perhaps they grab the NR data, then use their data-mining skills to figure out who’s who. Otherwise, it would seem their only avenue would be getting data from the State sites. By using the State sites, and not the NR, the SORNA element wouldn’t apply.

And technically, there is no National Registry, rather only an amalgamation of State registries.

–AJ

@AJ

It’s part of the SORNA requirement that the state registries feed the email and other info to the approved social networking sites. There are strict requirements that the social media cannot use that email or other info for any purpose other than to restrict those people from using their site or somehow protecting minors by some other means.

@Chris F Thanks for the info and clarification on SORNA. I’ve never read it, truth be told, as my State exactly mirrors its notification requirements, and I’m not traveling (even domestically) anytime soon. So the Feds are forcing the States to issue blacklists to social media. See https://all4consolaws.org/2017/06/scotus-rules-justly-in-packingham-case/#comment-178416 for a brilliant post from someone near and dear to me about this. 😉 I really don’t see how this is any different than the Gov’t having the red-scare blacklists or a Bill of Attainder against communists. Hmmm…that BoA argument is sounding better and better. Another angle I thought of as a… Read more »

Your points are exactly correct. There is NO restriction placed on Sex Offenders that should pass constitutional muster, because there was no Substantive Due Process involved in our being on the list. Per Connecticut DPS V Doe (2003), the Sex Offender registry makes no judgement that a sex offender is currently dangerous. Therefore, there is no justification for someone on the list to have any liberty interest affected by any law or city ordinance. Anything that gets to SCOTUS should succeed in being won by us as far as restrictions go if challenged under Substantive Due Process or Bill of… Read more »

@Lake County Actually, suing in county court is quite often a cheaper, viable option. FB would still need to show up to defend themselves–and expose their legal strategy–or face possible default judgment. Since an RC could limit the damage claim, it could probably even be done pro se in small claims. Even if FB shows, local judges tend to be a little more resistant to some “high falutin'” lawyer running their court room and telling them how things should be. This strategy is not limited to CA RCs, either. In fact, it’s often handy to sue a company that operates,… Read more »

I totally agree! I think a lawsuit against Facebook (at least as far as California law is concerned) needs to happen!

I posit Alito’s Misleading “Concurring in Judgement” Which I suggest needs be studied and Countered with Truth in Reasoned Logic. ALITO, J., concurring in judgment II While I thus agree with the Court that the particular law at issue in this case violates the First Amendment, I am troubled by the Court’s loose rhetoric. After noting that “a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights,” the Court states that “cyberspace” and “social media in particular” are now “the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views.” Ante, at… Read more »

I don’t even see why Alito needed another opinion. I see the majority saying that a law certainly can be narrowly tailored to stop a repeat sex offender from luring a child on a social web site. Why Alito needed a separate opinion on the subject is beyond me. Contrary to fighting the minority though, I think we use their view to our advantage in a case that gets to SCOTUS. All we have to do is agree that it’s perfectly acceptable for a judge, during sentencing, to restrict the social networking activities of someone that preys on children using… Read more »

Chris F you stated: “Why Alito needed a separate opinion on the subject is beyond me.” I posit Alito’s reasoning is founded on the fear of the Ignorant Populace anger directed to SCOTUS for not delivery Perpetual Retribution that they hunger & thirst for daily, as they Want to feel the False Self Righteousness & False Piety that triggers the indorphins within the Ignorant Populaces inimical & impotent brains. I concur with you on “fighting the minority though” but: Suggest being prepared for the Unseen or Unknowable out comes as Life is always Filled ( Blessed ) or Emptied (… Read more »

Your words are still hard to understand, but I think your comment is correct. It may just be that they are trying to get the uneducated population to not criticize this court for the unanimous decision.
——

If we were really lucky, we will see a Trump Tweet on the court’s decision. But that would be really stupid of him, right? lol

Lake County, You infer correctly the masses “At Large” in a Pure Democratic Style behave & function under the Herd Mentality of Mob Role. This reality is what most persons in the Private & Public sectors attempt to mitigate their exposure to such Caustic & Acidic repercussion, it can not be denied as a Due Diligence to simple human self interest. Therefore we must celebrate individuals of past, present, & the future who step forward and place Self-Interest at a level position with their fellows, The Founding Fathers of Our nation should come to mind as they secured Justice for… Read more »

=========================== I don’t even see why Alito needed another opinion. =========================== I see it this way: The first amendment cannot be abridged. It’s all or nothing. The three separate judges want to say that the states still have the ability to corral sex offenders due to the high recidivism rates. Lo and behold, if they only knew their sources are false and do not come from a verified expert, then those three judges may have to re-think their separate opinions. But this also could be foreshadowing for the Snyder case and we have can see lines draw right now upon… Read more »

As pointed out when this story broke in the “general” comments section for June by Paul, the best part of this opinion is this right here: “Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.” Note it says “TROUBLING FACT”! This is a HUGE hint of the direction to take and win a challenge that gets before SCOTUS that could unravel the entire Sex Offender Registry scheme. Couple that… Read more »

==================================
“Of importance, the troubling fact that the law
imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have
served their sentence and are no longer subject to the
supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an
issue before the Court.”
==================================

This is why I continue to state “involuntary servitude”. It is prohibited unless to punish a crime. You’ve completed your punitive service to the state, but must continue to serve the state as a free person?!

Registration isn’t punitive.

Like I said, it’s so simple, but no one believes involuntary servitude can exist today.

@New Person I’ve definitely become more and more convinced about the involuntary servitude argument, thanks in large part to your information and posts. Thanks! I agree that the phrase, “severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence,” points strongly to an involuntary servitude or Bill of Attainder claim. Your comment of “it’s so simple, but no one believes involuntary servitude can exist today,” rang in my ears, too. Whenever something is deemed impossible or “never” to happen is when it has the best chance of success. “Nobody would ever hide a bunch of soldiers inside a big wooden… Read more »

Two ironies: Irony No. 1: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts has decided against himself in a case that wouldn’t even be considered had Supreme Court Attorney for the State John Roberts had asserted that sex offender registration would be nothing more intrusive on the sex offender than a pleasant Tuesday morning filling out a Price Club application in Smith v Doe. Irony No. 2: The original plaintiff, Gerard Packinham, was busted for posting in Facebook, which as a private company, has a right to ban people as they see fit (as registrants aren’t a protected class), so… Read more »

Yep, a Facebook fight couldn’t be won though. Instead, we need to fight that can be won, which is the government’s role in keeping us off Facebook. The government’s need to demand our email addresses with penalty of years in prison for refusing, and then providing those to Facebook so they may ban us, is where I believe a good challenge lies. Within the right to free speech is the right to free anonymous speech. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads: Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. .… Read more »

I concur,

To Dwell & Domicile within Light or Darkness with the Sheild of Annonimity is at the Core & Foundation to The First Ammendments Principles.

It enables The Individual or Messanger to expose Truth that the Majority in any Society would seek to debase & reject New Knowdge for the sake of the selfish desire of the Statues Quo interest of the Ego to the members of the majority group.

I Speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

So SCOTUS has confirmed that the State, “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.” Isn’t that exactly what they’re doing by giving FB a list of people? How is it different than if the State gave a list and/or photos to the organizers or operators of a physical public square, who then barred everyone on that list from attending? Collusive activity by the State to abridge one’s Free Speech is just as unconstitutional. I also wonder how many (if any) States are violating some sort of Data Practices Act by releasing the information to FB,… Read more »

Eric Knight

You described Facebook as:

” based upon Facebook being de facto public presence based upon monopoly status”

I would suggest a more accurate description of Facebook as a:

“A Public Utility”

Similar to Water, Power, Gas, Sewer, & Telephonic Services those would Never UnReasonably be denied any Human Person for all practical purposes.

I speak Truth

As yehovah Lives, so should we

@Bill Arthur. I agree there. Does sound an awful lot like an invitation. I hope it gets taken up.

Good news! My heartfelt thanks to the Packingham legal team for fighting this to the Supreme Court AND WINNING!!

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers encourages a rational and humane criminal justice policy to promote fairness, due process, and compassion talks to the lawyers in the Packingham v. North Carolina: Collateral Consequences at the High Court.

These are very good lawyers that argued this law.

https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/7/6/5762bba3fa9d7bb3/CriminalDocketEpisode051.mp3?c_id=14975563&expiration=1492772592&hwt=14414e0b518d6f0258bf625e0ffb7691

While it stops statue prohibitions, it does nothing about prohibitions via “terms of service”.

It’s the equivalent of saying no to Jim Crow laws, but continuing to allow the lunch counter owner to maintain a no coloreds policy.

Nice, but not really useful.

True, but it does stop the illegal Search and Seizures based on that law as well as frees the 1500+ people convicted by that law. Of course, now they’ll just take those 1500+ people and violate them for failure to register whatever email address they associated with those Facebook accounts.

The biggest gain from this is finding out that SCOTUS may not approve of restrictions on someone after they finish their sentence and probation/parole. That’s huge, and the lynch pin that could take down the entire registry scheme.

Yup. This seems like it has opened a pretty big hole for additional to be overruled, and hopefully the registry as a whole. That’s the end game for us all.

Yeah SCROTUS is ready to hear a real challenge to the entire scheme it is just going to take the right argument like the ones that we are preparing…This is just a sneak peak at what they will state when we hit em hard with facts and evidence and debunk their high risk BS. Chris this is huge we are definitely on the right track …..I will be back on it soon…I am sick and having to do a lot of homework so I took a break but I will be back on it so anything helpful throw it over… Read more »

(2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:

(A) Health insurance.

(B) Insurance.

(C) Loans.

(D) Credit.

(E) Employment.

(F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships.

(G) Housing or accommodations.

(H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.

C-SPAN is playing the oral arguments for this case right now (1pm PT). Here is a audio link (with added funny video) of the oral arguments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pU6qGfSWT8

Thanks for the link! It was very interesting hearing the argument. The few times I have listened to court arguments, it always strikes me how mellow and unprofessional everything sounds. I mean, when you watch a piece of fiction like this everything is so eloquent and precises. But in reality even those at the very top of the game still always do the “um, ah, ect” that we’re always taught in school to avoid. Even the justices!

Oyez.org is an excellent way to hear oral arguments of all SCOTUS cases, along with real-time captioning. They are available very soon after arguments and provide terrific commentary, too.

When I was putting together a study of all SCOTUS cases in which sex offenses and child pornography were at issue, it was invaluable. I was able to break out each case according to the votes of individual justices, whether positive or negative rulings (from my/our standpoint), as well as a rating system of individual justices.

As a parolee, one of the (many) restrictions imposed upon me is being prohibited from social media like facebook and Twitter. Can anyone tell me if today’s SCOTUS ruling repeals this parole restriction?

I do not believe it does. While on supervision you can have almost any amount of restrictions placed on you. This was dealing with the person being off supervision but still having this restriction placed on him.

I doubt it because to get released early on parole, you are agreeing to abide by the strict rules they place upon you. While on parole, you are still serving your prison sentence with just about any restriction they place upon you. Not much different than all the other things you are restricted from while being inside of prison. Parole is a restrictive option that you do not have to agree with. You have the option to complete your prison term and not have these restrictions upon release.

Parole is not optional in CA. Even if you serve your sentence in full, you are still placed in parole upon your release.

If you Violate Face Books terms of service, they can do more than just kick you off, They can File a Civil suit and Clean out your bank Accounts. What you can do is go after the Politian’s that use it for public Speaking. They Must Equally Represent everyone.

They are n o longer a private business.

I can go buy a share of Facbook and still can’t access it. I would be a part owner way under 1% ownership of facebook but still can’t access it.

Should come as no surprise that Justices Roberts, Alito and Thomas choose to perpetrate a myth. In most all cases, Rightists are the ones pushing this type of legislation.

….

Celebrating!!! SCOTUS = “Making America FREE Again!” 😁

that oral argument was really bizarre…how the court kept throwing out hypothetical situations one after the other and asking “would you say that would be unconstitutional or constitutional ” and finally when the attorney says to one of those inquiries that it was irrelevant he hit it on the nose…they dont accept hypotheticals from us so why should they get to use them? this was the nest argued case that i have seen for our side and is just a snapshot of what’s coming….

what i didn’t like was the fact that he didn’t debunk the other side when they were stating the same old falsehoods about recidivism…

That statement about the reoffense rate really pisses me off! And I hope it pisses the rest of you off too! I want to fire back so damn bad! Ignorance!

Another thing..I bet when the issue of the recidivism rate falsehoods are brought before the court and are extensively argued that the court might, just might, be a little ticked off that the solicitor general and other state attorneys have been duping the court and putting forth falsehood stats and purposely misrepresenting the facts to the court and making them look like fools. I will be sure to argue that the court should find this deception as a key factor when scrutinizing any future cases involving ex sex offenders…I did like how one of the justices I think is was… Read more »

mike r, I concur with your approach to Convincingly Argue before SCOTUS. As you well stated: “the solicitor general and other state attorneys have been duping the court and putting forth falsehood stats and purposely misrepresenting the facts to the court and making them look like fools.” Make it clear to SCOTUS that they are Victims too and you are Advocating for their good Reputation & Future Legacy. It is key to remember that the Jurist are human beings Not gods from on High, the ugly truth is that they too suffer from the Inherent Weakness of the Human Condition… Read more »

this can be true, but so what: ““(w)hen sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.” The bigger issue looms and that is lower recidivism overall, regardless of what one does when they do reoffend!

I am very happy and feel blessed by this decision!!! Praise GOD!!!

In the meantime, I’d like to invite Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas to please go back to Neptune or wherever they’re from because apparently they haven’t a clue about reality!

“(w)hen sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.”

Really???? Get your heads out of your a**es!!!!!

Despite the ignorance of these 3 justices, I am grateful that they ruled properly!

That statement may not be false though. It is just misleading and tries to make you think something that isn’t written there. Sex offenders that DO recidivate and commit another crime, are more likely to commit a sex offense than a bank robber or drug dealer. Just like a bank robber that commits another crime is more likely to rob a bank then a sex offender. It’s just a very deceptively worded sentence that has no place in Judicial opinions and really says nothing about overall Sex Offender recidivism in comparison to other groups recidivism. I guess they should include… Read more »

It’s odd. I think recently I got into a discussion with a couple of people on here that the high recidivism rate was one of the major factors for saying that registration was regulatory. Here, we have three justices stating just that in their own opinion, but that the first amendment rights were trampled upon egregiously that all three justices had to concur with the higher issue – first amendment rights need protecting. Then, Kennedy made an off comment in the opinion that restrictions after paying your dues was “troubling”. That’s a dig at Justice Roberts. ::: raising shoulders :::… Read more »

Good Point.

“[W]hen sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.” Yup, and jaywalkers are much more likely to jaywalk than speeders; speeders more likely to speed than jaywalkers. People with one tattoo are more likely to get a(nother) tattoo than someone who has none. What a profound sociology item they’ve stumbled upon for us: the more someone does something, the more likely they are to do it again (even if just once versus zero). Red-light running? Yup. Going two days without changing underwear? Yup.… Read more »

I wonder what can be done about states thst require you to still give them your account name and email associated with it even if they don’t ban you. Then they turn it over the info to the social media site who has a policy banning sex offenders so they delete your account. In effect the state is taking an action they know will bar your free speech. One could take it further and say with facial and name recognition software the online registry could be used by social media to filter out sex offenders and that they state run… Read more »

RP, you raise a very good point. Facebook bans sex offenders. Their prohibition is based on government compelled speech – our provision of registration information that is then provided to the public.

What about Facebook ? Practically every corner of the internet where you are able to blog and speak an opinion requires a Facebook account. They are “publicly” traded and hooked linked to almost every site (id say about 90%) where you are able to leave a comment, opinion and everything talking. Even more so, the news media sites. They hinder my first amendment right to leaving an opinion on an article that was published by the free press news sites. Anonymity is also protected by the U.S constitution and Bill of Rights to protect an unpopular individual from the lynch… Read more »

Several Internet Websites do actually require Commenters to Login via Facebook, and or LinkedIn and Google.

I think that the day when a market-dominant behemoth, such as Facebook, may come to be considered as a “common carrier” is possibly on the horizon. At that point, as a common-carrier, they would fall afoul of the courts if they were to continue to block membership of such a wide class of people. This will also raise a complex tangle of issues before it is resolved, including, and especially, how it can reasonably control speech (think: terrorist sympathizers). If it were to be seen as a common carrier, I don’t think that its corporate structure as a publicly-traded company… Read more »

Son you like that approach huh..lol..gives the court a way out and a scapegoat to pin their mistake on..right? Chris the court did actually casually touched on that subject of “by your logic pretty soon you will have everyone who commits a crime on a list and barred from everywhere ” or something to that statement, it just appears to me that scrotus has actually been watching whats happening in the lower courts and they seem perplexed by what they are witnessing and are anticipating, and even encouraging with all their hints, for someone to get the real issues in… Read more »

@Mike R Exactly. I don’t think they are blind to all the media attention over the years to all of the restrictions and laws pointing to those on the registry. I think SCOTUS thought they were clear in Connecticut DPS V Doe that the registry was only constitutional as long as it didn’t infer dangerousness and was only making public info easier to access. Once you make the first restriction against a registrant (Which Connecticut did the year after the SCOTUS decision) you void that ruling, and violate Substantive Due Process by not having restrictions tailored to the individual during… Read more »

mike r With regard to your observation: “Son you like that approach huh..lol..gives the court a way out and a scapegoat to pin their mistake on..right?” The ancient ritual of Redeeming oneself by placing debts (sins) upon a scapegoat is a deep rooted Instution that has been Profaned & Abused since time immemorial. I believe SCOTUS as current subscribers to The Institutions of Peer Pressure & High School Politics lack the Obejective Moral Courage to practice True Justice, so they will meander upon the Path of Correct Conduct to the Calling of Heaven & Earth bearing witness to their poor… Read more »

I’ve always said, the automobile license plate for all North Hanoi Carolina should read as their state motto:
North Carolina the Un-Constitutional state.
Of course, the ruling couldn’t be any other way in a free society when the foundation of law is the Constitution.
Whewwwwwwwwww

excellent comment Chris I think I will work your comment into our motion. keep tabs on general comments for updates and more collaboration…I don’t see how all these civil rights groups aren’t jumping on this because whomever topples the registry is going to be famous and will be cononized in the annals of history…great PR for any civil attorneys….

son of liberty…you made my point in your religious tirade that very few could probably follow. I think they will bite on that low hanging fruits and be able to regress to that old institution og blame shifting that you preached about. Keep it real Son and even though some of your religious references and oratories maybe difficult to follow or even understand sometimes..lol…you give color to these comments sections and I am far from being a religious man but if it makes you feel better and its your way to speak your mind I say go for it… As… Read more »

mike r with regard to your statement: “you made my point in your religious tirade that very few could probably follow. I think they will bite on that low hanging fruits and be able to regress to that old institution og blame shifting that you preached about.” Yes it is a high probability that SCOTUS will defer to avail themselves of misty mirrors, therefore it is incumbent upon you in the service of True Justice to identify the gaps they expose and you fill them, in that you will be lead to victory with no glory. Pleased to assist you… Read more »

“It is disappointing that three members of the U.S. Supreme Court continue to repeat a myth which has been disproved by decades of research,” stated Bellucci. “That research, including the findings of Dr. Karl Hanson, has overwhelmingly concluded that registrants have a very low rate of re-offense.” Yes; it’s very disappointing. But can anyone expect anything less from dishonest people in high places? They completely disregard the truth as if it doesn’t exist. If anyone thinks these corrupt people are unaware of the truth/facts then you are fooling yourself. $omeone has gotten to them, and there are plenty of industries… Read more »

I believe one of the three has to support the false data narrative to support his own case from 2003 or else he would undermine it and the Price Club membership requirement, which would ruin his credibility. Carry the error as they said in engineering and math classes so at least the process can be seen even if it is wrong in the end….

WRAL, one of the main news outlets out of Raleigh, NC posted this article about the repeal and a decent 3 minute video. A lady from the nc coalition against sexual assault stated that this law and others like it do nothing and that time and effort should be on treatment not restrictions. At the end of the video the broadcasters said the govenor (roy cooper) was very disappointed and the AG (josh stein) vowed to go back to the drawing board and draft another law that would be consitutional….I cant wait to see it. Im hoping they are just… Read more »

They can use social media but only on days that don’t end in Y.

Worked your comments in there Chris and this is what I put in there around the false statistic subject… 1. I would think that the court would be seriously upset by the fact that the attorneys for the government not only misrepresented the facts about recidivism rates to the court in McKune using unconfirmed statistics, but they continue to feed the court the false assumptions and keep misrepresenting the actual facts in just about every case brought on sex offender laws, even though they (the attorneys and legislators) know that those assumptions have been thoroughly debunked. Thus, any assertion in… Read more »

The really frustrating thing for me when it comes to facts in general is that the government seems to always be incredibly hesitant to even want to hear any facts to the contrary of any policy that’s in place. Just think of the insane struggle of getting women the right to vote (lots of very false facts presented as to why they shouldn’t, including “your wife’s vote will cancel out yours”), segregation, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, climate change, etc. And I think its because the government, much like your drunk uncle, hates to admit they were wrong. And unlike… Read more »

@ AlexO I posit new knowledge for your consideration: Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence? Here are three alternative answers: 1. The “Science Comprehension Thesis” (SCT), which identifies defects in the public’s knowledge and reasoning capacities as the source of such controversies; 2. The “Identity-protective Cognition Thesis” (ICT), which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science. 3. The simple answer may be – Cognitive-Bias http://www.datascienceassn.org/sites/default/files/Science%20Comprehension%20Thesis.pdf http://www.datascienceassn.org/tags/cognitive-bias I speak a True song… Read more »

This, from the ever-news-scouring Bill Dobbs on the North Carolina victory: A U.S. Supreme Court win! In a unanimous ruling the court struck down North Carolina’s law banning registrants from social media as unconstitutional; individuals on the sex offense registry have First Amendment rights. The North Carolina law makes it a felony for registrants to simply “access” social media sites that allow under-18-year-olds to post such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn—which means banishment from sites that are virtual town squares for many millions of people. No actual online wrongdoing is required for conviction; a reporter opined that reading Donald Trump’s tweets… Read more »

I wonder how many NC cops are now free of desk duty scouring FB (I’m sure they never did any personal FB activities while “fighting crime” in this manner) and can go out and actually do law enforcement activities that help society. Unfortunately, they will probably just buttress the compliance-check jackboots.

–AJ

And how much you want to bet that many of those scouring the Internet looking for CP are protesting a bit too ostentatiously about how “traumatizing” the experience is?

Here is one last article from wral (out of Raleigh, NC) For those who aren’t familiar with them, they tend to be a very conservative group. This is an excellent opinion from their parent company, capitol broadcasting company (cbc). They really take it to the NC legislature about how they play politics in NC.

http://www.wral.com/editorial-supreme-court-again-to-n-c-don-t-play-politics-with-the-constitution-/16775043/

***please do not copy and paste full articles. Moderator***

@Lovecraft
Thanks for the WRAL article. It’s a nice piece, with a proper smackdown on NC politicos.

–AJ

104
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.