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


KY: Judge strikes down Kentucky’s social media ban for sex offenders

UPDATED – Kentucky’s registered sex offenders have the constitutional right to use Facebook, Twitter and other online social media, a federal judge ruled Friday. Full Article


Plaintiff’s discussion on (added 10/21)


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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Another one bites the dust!!!!

I’m confused. They did another judge have to rule on something SCOTUS already said isn’t legal? I thought a SCOTUS ruling became national and binding?

Nothing ever seems to be national and binding when it comes to helping us. However, when it comes to destroying our lives and the lives of our families, it seems to be national and instantaneous. Sucks!!!

@AlexO: Sort of. SCOTUS struck down instances that match NC’s law. So what happens is States argue that theirs isn’t as restrictive, or it’s materially different, etc. Packingham didn’t yield an outright, “thou shalt not ban RCs from social media sites,” directive; it instead established that the State must narrowly tailor any sort of restriction to achieve the stated and intended outcome. As the article points out, “Kentucky…told [the court] that the social media ban was a narrow restriction that should be considered constitutional.” —– I really like the one comment someone posted: “There is a very simple solution to… Read more »

KEEP YOUR KIDS OUT OF THE STREET! That way they won’t get run over!

Aren’t phone services and cable TV already regulated “public utilities” in a sense? You can’t just go build a cell tower on your property. You have to have an FCC license and local approval. Cable is or has been regulated down to the local level forever. Think about how cable services had to have a public access channel where damn near any kind of weird show could be shown. If people have First Amendment based mandatory access to the cable “airwaves” why should it be any different for access t internet service PROVIDED BY CABLE COMPANIES at a minimum. It… Read more »

The “jump” is that social media companies would have to be declared to be a “common carrier” for them to be regulated at the level that would compel them to offer membership to all people. Personally, as much as I hate FB, I would hate the government’s regulation of it even more. We have to consider how those regulations might also interfere with the right to assembly and to speech, too. That’s not a path I want to see it go down. Besides, FB is not an immovable boulder like “Plymouth Rock.” There are no guarantees that it will survive… Read more »

“I really like the one comment someone posted: “There is a very simple solution to all of this….Ban Children from the internet …”

You know. I have always said the same. Where the hell are parents at? Do they allow their kids to hang around bars, strip clubs and heroin dens? Shouldn’t the parent bear some responsibility here? I didn’t allow my son to have social media accounts before he turned 14. Which was about the time he got a smartphone. They don’t *need” either.


Does Facebook or any other social media websites still have a ban on registrants? I remember hearing a few registrants had their profiles shut down because of Facebook’s policy. Have things changed?

This is a feel good ruling because Facebook will ban you anyway, so what is the point?

The point is that it is no longer enforced by law. That is a huge “point.”

How are they going to ban you? Are they conducting background checks on all of it’s members? For that matter, Facedbook could probably be sued in some states for discriminating against someone who is or was required to register. Do they ban people convicted of domestic violence or other violent crimes? Newsflash!! There are people committing LIVE murders on Facedbook. If a business can be sued for not baking a cake for a same-sex couple, then why not a “sex offender?”


Being and RC is not a protected class which is why FB can ban us without recourse. What they can’t do is bring legal action against you simply for having an account. They may or may not do active cross-checking themselves, but I personally know of at least 2 people who have had their accounts shut down with the explicit reason being due to their RC status and that being against their ToS. I have no idea how they obtain this data though. AJ and others have stated the government actually sends them RC information periodically to cross-check against. Someone… Read more »

“How can I report a convicted sex offender?
Convicted sex offenders aren’t allowed to use Facebook. If you’ve encountered an account that may belong to a convicted sex offender, please report it to us.”

FB is the only SM platform I’m aware of that specifically mentions RCs in their TOS.

I like that AJ, if it’s so damn dangerous then ban kids from the internet, like you said, they have no constitutional rights to the internet.

FB can still take you to court if you Violate their terms of Service.

No they can’t.

I’ve had an account on there for over a decade. Them bitches at Facedbook can suck it.


I don’t use FB, but as far as I know, they don’t actively screen their customers to see if they are registered citizens, or “convicted sex offenders”.

I think the risk is that if someone reports to FB that you are a “convicted sex offender” they will kick you off.

FB doesn’t appeal to me, but I know it is important to many people. I hope you get to continue to use FB for as long as you like.

On what basis? It’s not going to happen. It would be a huge mistake for them to do that. Imagine the issues that would come up in court.

Terms of service are Equal to a Contract. Just like No trespassing signs Protect property Owners.
Or How about No shoes, No shirt no Service posted on store Doors. Watch what the Supreme Court rules on the Bakery that refused to make a cake for the Gay Couple.

Signing up for FB as a Registrant is not sue-worthy. All they can do is suspend them as users.

@stephen: I agree with David Kennerly on this. I don’t think FB would bother, it’s much easier, cheaper and faster to just block and ban. It’s probably in the TOS what the recourse is for violating. I’m sure it includes the ability to sue, but in reality I’m guessing FB wouldn’t bother unless you keep doing it. As for the Masterpiece Cakeshop case before SCOTUS, it has nothing to do with the customers being gay. Had the heterosexual parents or friends of one (or both) of the men asked to have the cake decorated for the gay wedding, he still… Read more »

SCOTUS has listed the Masterpiece Cakeshop case for 14 conferences. As far as it stands. and as far as Colorado and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Masterpiece Cakeshop is guilty of discrimination.


What’s your point? The number of re-listings is of no consequence. Masterpiece was granted on June 26, 2017, and scheduled for oral argument on December 5, 2017.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x