A lawsuit was filed today in federal court on behalf of a registrant who is on parole in order to challenge a parole condition that prohibits him from accessing all social media. Defendants in the case include the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Secretary of CDCR and his parole officer.
“Many registrants on parole are unlawfully being denied access to social media,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “The courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have determined that similar denials violate the First Amendment.”
The plaintiff in this case resides in the City of Los Angeles and was convicted of a sex offense in 2008. He was sentenced to prison and is currently on parole in the state of California. The plaintiff did not use any part of the internet, including social media, to commit his offense.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff wishes to use social media in order to share the music he creates as well as to communicate with others his political issues including the right to vote. Social media is “perhaps the most powerful mechanism available to a private citizen to make his or her voice be heard”, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The rights of all registrants to access social media is the focus of the case filed today,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein.
I am not sure if this would make any difference Facebook STILL deny RC to communicate with others his political issues including the right to vote. I think Facebook should be part of the lawsuit as well.
YES YES YES!
Social media is “perhaps the most powerful mechanism available to a private citizen to make his or her voice be heard.”
I agree 100% with this. CDCR’s ban on social media is an attempt to chill free speech. It is also an attempt by CDCR to keep registrants from posting potentially harmful — but truthful — comments that challenge the tyranny of CDCR, its “treatment” contractor, and its often tyrannical parole agents. When CDCR bans a parolee from using a computer and/or social media, even after he/she has served time in prison, make no mistake that it is *not* in the interest of ‘public safety.’ Public safety is only the excuse they use so that the masses are kept uninformed of the injustices that happen behind closed doors.
Personally, I think that Facebook’s best days may be behind it. Young people are abandoning it in droves and I think that’s wonderful. I look forward to the day when they are largely irrelevant and we will wonder why we wanted to join. I say, let’s just turn it into a boycott.
I’d like to think that their approach to us “dangerous” “sex offenders” might play a part in making them less attractive to those who don’t want such maternalistic “protection.” Many people now see them as ‘get-up-in-your-business’ busybodies and find Mark Zuckerberg to be a self-righteous know-it-all, something I’ve always felt, so it’s great to see Millennials, and those even younger, finally abandoning him.
“Facebook lost around 2.8 million U.S. users under 25 last year. 2018 won’t be much better.
That’s according to research firm eMarketer.” https://www.recode.net/2018/2/12/16998750/facebooks-teen-users-decline-instagram-snap-emarketer
Yep, this suit has an uphill battle, especially applied to parolees. If it is blanket enforcement than it is not going to pass muster and they will have to tailor it to individuals. It is amazing how parolees seem to have more rights then free citizen RCs. Even then like everyone states: FB can deny if they want so you would have to sue them. Maybe, but good luck….
Read the law in Calfornia code
(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.
Once again, a huge difference between No. Cal and So. Cal. My son’s parole agent said he was free to explore whatever he chooses for both social and employment networking purposes, again going to a “crime” that involved neither a minor or the internet. While he is banned from Facebook and has no desire to join up (since it’s becoming the “old people’s site”), LinkedIn has been incredibly valuable in helping him advance his career. We frankly are not seeing the corruption within the CDCR here in the Bay Area as you are down south. Something fishy definitely going on down there….. If anyone can change it, Janice certainly can!!
I used to be on parole here in San Diego, well I had the same lame condition, did I follow it ? Nope I was on the internet everyday… its called wifi,Turning Wifi ID Name OFF, and a laptop, that easily folds close and is easily hide-able 🙂 Ohh yea along with… When they show up… well I had proximity sensors for that to haha easily called a early warning system to know when someone was in a place they shouldnt be haha
Its called beating then at their OWN GAME LOL…
Is federal supervised release the same as parole? This guy caught my eye…
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sd/pr/california-man-sentenced-30-months-failure-register-sex-offender
Was convicted of Sexual Battery (at age 17 from the ML web site, mind you) in 2000, served less than a year, if any, of incarceration, now convicted of Failure to Register and sentenced to 30 months in federal prison, *followed by supervised release for the remainder of life*.
Does that mean he can be prohibited from accessing Social Media for the rest of his life? For an offense from 18 years ago, which for all intents and purposes could / should be a misdemeanor – at a time when there was no such thing as Social Media, and barely an internet?
Along with the loss of voting rights and the right to be protected from unwarranted search and seizure etc etc – for a lifetime? Wow. Is it?
The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld sex offender registration laws both times such laws have been examined by them. Several challenges on parts of state level legislation have been honored by the courts. Legal scholars have challenged the rationale behind the Supreme Court rulings. Perceived problems in legislation has prompted organizations such as NARSOL, ACSOL and ACLU among others, to promote for reform.