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


IA: Iowa Supreme Court rules requiring sex offenders to report social media presence is not a First Amendment violation

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday that requiring sex offenders to disclose their social media identities and other digital information does not violate their free speech rights.

Five of the seven justices agreed that the requirement, part of the state’s sex offender registry, was put in place a decade ago to protect children and victims from possible abuse but was not a “proxy for content regulations.” Justice Thomas Waterman’s opinion emphasized that sex offenders aren’t required to disclose their passwords and aren’t prevented from participating in social media. 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 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

The whole reasoning of safety here is bad since it relies on just the persons name and not a truly unique identifier like a social security number. An RC named John Smith has tens of thousands of doppelgangers. And if RC John Smith doesn’t choose on include his picture and city location, then what use is it to a potential victim to know that John Smith is an RC? Does the potential victim now avoid 100% of people with the same name? I use Facebook but don’t have a single picture of myself or my family on it and didn’t… Read more »

This is absurd to simple neglect the rights of once prosecuted to ever live a normal and uninfrenged life because the gov. Claims an all time stake in internet or any territory the deem necessary to so called protect public…so at what point is it considered to be stupid lines drawn and no way for ex offenders to be free of troubles, barriers, bias, losses in social and all areas of life Solely on the concept it’s best for the rest of the world does not matter that it hurts, damages, blocks, rejects, and makes 2nd class citzens maybe… Read more »

As if gov agents do not have software to overcome password barriers!
Just more opinion from ignorant non tech savvy peoples.

From the Opinion (and lower Court): ***** With the internet having so affected our daily lives, the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s assertion that providing information regarding a person’s internet identifier is no different than providing an address or telephone number. ***** Why on *earth* would the Plaintiff (the RC) make such a horrible claim!?!? “Your Honor, Internet info holds no special status such as speaking in the modern-day public square. Indeed, it’s no different than any other basic personal fact swirling out there on forms and in millions of discarded phone books.” Were I the State, I would have readily… Read more »

There is a possibility of this rising to SCOTUS level. Given that sex offenders are already looked down upon, should a sex offender voice any opinion on social media, then that sex offender will be treated like a sex offender than an individual with concerns. The courts are rendering the value of an individual’s thoughts worth less than the individual’s peers once that thought is originated from a sex offender. Not only is it chilling a voice, but it has potentiality of harassing the individual once the individual is identified on social media. A simply google query of “What is… Read more »

Frankly, I think it is beyond outrageous that any person who would dare call him/herself an American even begins to think that this “Internet identifier” BS is acceptable in any way. America has ALWAYS struggled to be a decent, moral country and to me, this is just more of that. Our country has never been free and it is currently devolving, every second of the day. Just take a look at our “leader”. Additionally, anyone who dreams that it is worthwhile to get “identifiers” from a million people in the ridiculous, totally-will-never-happen chance that one of them might be dumb… Read more »

Thank you, Iowa, for banishing me 15 years ago when you (retroactively) upheld the 2,000′ law! The madness runs stronger in some states, and to think what life would be year after year makes me happy to flee that sinking ship.

I hope that if it gets reviewed by SCOTUS, they take into consideration the amount of sites that require you to create an account/ user name/ etc. and the needless nature of the catch-22 reporting burden attached to felony consequences.

Packingham vs. North carolina has already brought this issue before scotus and they ruled it a constitutional violation. Iowa is just forcing this individual to spend more money fighting

I think you need to review NC V. PACKINGHAM. The issue in that court was an NC law outright banning registrants from social media, not the ” reporting” of IDs. The unconditional aspect of reporting is overbroad and feckless. Why because a human can create hundreds of email addresses a day. Same for internet id’s The true reason why agents desire this data is the key phrase of search then has a target. By disclosing an email address you give the surveillance saints a keystroke input to conducting a warrantless search. That is a necessary key to both covert tracking… Read more »

@New Person:
“As noted above, another aspect is that social media can behave like a tracking device. Thus, one can make an allusion that it is akin to a GPS tracking unit and an individual is under surveillance 24 hours of the day.”
Hardly. One is voluntary, the other mandatory. One is controlled by private entities (you, FB), the other by the Government. Your allusion is illusory.

@New Person Is there existing case law that could be referred to that would help on appeal to SCOTUS which would entice them to take it for consideration and also should’ve been in the IASC appeal? I read @AJ’s posting and unless there is something there talking about chilling in the public social media square, I’m not seeing any way it gets approved to be heard by the 9 in black robes. Of course, WRT phone books, I can pay for a undisclosed phone number and no listing in the white pages of yore which is very difficult, but not… Read more »

It’s IA, the same state that wanted to pressure a teen girl into treatment for photos she took of herself the DA saw as naughty. Smh…

“It’s IA, the same state that wanted to pressure a teen girl into treatment for photos she took of herself the DA saw as naughty.”
I wonder how many times he had to see them to ensure they were naughty…. “I’ll be reviewing evidence for the next 5 minutes. No calls, please.”


HA! That one line is probably uttered in many DA/LE offices when reviewing similar “evidence” or pushing it (they don’t do that, do they?).

People don’t really care about this. Only a couple of comments on the article.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x