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)


TX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rules

Texas rules barring some sex offenders from using certain websites were thrown into jeopardy Monday morning after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar statute in North Carolina violates the First Amendment. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Chris F

    This doesn’t affect anything in Texas.

    Probation and Parole can restrict anything they want to within reason.

    I’ve got this restriction during probation. Anyone is free to challenge it as not related to their crime, but most don’t care enough to pay a lawyer to do that. Restrictions on parole or probation aren’t supposed to be mandatory to all that committed specific crimes and are supposed to be tailored to the individual but that hardly ever happens and it’s hard to afford an attorney to challenge it. The Packingham case doesn’t change any of this one way or the other.

    • t

      Wrong Chris F, they are talking about those that are still incarcerated, if you are still in custody part of your punishment is restriction. We are talking about those who not incarcerated or are off probation and parole.

      • Chris F

        The article states:
        Texas also restricts the websites that offenders released on parole or under mandatory supervision are allowed to use.

        Robert Hurst, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said in a statement that the department is evaluating the impact of the ruling on its “supervision populations.”
        You say “We are talking about those who not incarcerated or are off probation and parole”.

        You’ll need to elaborate on this, because nothing I said is wrong.

        The Packingham case only affects those off probation or parole that have completed their sentence and does nothing to set a precedent for those incarcerated or out on parole/probation. Like I said, it doesn’t affect anything in Texas, because Texas doesn’t have rules against Social Media for those off probation or parole that finished their sentence.

        The article is trying to be news worthy, but isn’t unless legislation comes up restricting those on the registry from social media…which to my knowledge living here in Texas, it hasn’t done.

        • New Person

          The state can impose any restriction upon you if you’re under custody supervision (prison, parole, or probation).

          Chris is correct. Peckingham only addresses people not under supervision. Which is why Justice Kennedy made an off comment in the opinion that it was “troubling” to know people who completed their custodial terms are still subject to restrictions as free persons.

        • AlexO

          That’s probably the single best comment of the entire case as it finally shows a real crack in the system. Even better that its seen by someone who’ll potentially have the final word. I’m hoping things blow up from here and will eventually lead to abolishing the entire thing.

        • Chris F

          I imagine that single comment is probably also why the other 3 Justices had to log a minority opinion that didn’t include that line and instead spouted misleading claims of danger. Luckily, I think Gorsuch will also abide by facts and the US Constitution and give us a 6-3 majority on similar cases.

          Please don’t let any of the 6 (potentially) on our side vacate SCOTUS before a major case can be heard that strikes at the core registry!

  2. AlexO

    What’s the Texas address? I’ll send them a dollar to wipe their tears.

  3. G4Change

    “…registered sex offenders disproportionately commit additional sex crimes online…”

    What the EFF??????? Where do these stupid morons come up with this crap????

    • AlexO

      You simply say something that sounds plausible. It’s not like anyone is going to bother defending the pedo’s with facts.

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 *