ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: April 18 – Phone, May 16 – Phone,
May 29/30 – Conference (Los Angeles),  June 13 – Sacramento details

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – Ticket Sales Halted


NY: NY Sex Offenders Don’t Have To Disclose Facebook Accounts To Law Enforcement, Court Says

[ – 7/8/19]

People convicted of sexual offenses in New York will not have to disclose their status and will be permitted to use their Facebook accounts provided they don’t use a false name.

The New York State Supreme Court unanimously made the ruling on Thursday, June 27, after a man from Ticonderoga was charged for failing to disclose to state officials that he used the social media website. His case has since been dismissed.

Read more

Related links:

Where sex offenders don’t socially register [ – 7/7/19]


Join the discussion

  1. G4Change

    A great decision, but I wish it was on different grounds such as on grounds of the right to anonymous speech. I hope the NY legislature doesn’t “patch” this law for the future. And I do hope they are able to track everyone down who was convicted of this stupid offense so that the conviction can be vacated.

    • Tim

      The inverse of “presumption of innocence.”
      All flowing from the “touch stone” use identified by the minority in DOE DECISIONS .

  2. Tim

    Affirmative restraint.
    How is the people’s use of e-stop not considered some proof of the people’s intent to impose affirmative restraint.
    Is this not evidence of collusion between e-commerce firms and gov to impose affirmative , of lawful activity?

    Does New York inform registrants of the purposes of the collection? That it maybe used to impose bans?

    • Scotus Save Us Now

      The Gov Gave that as the exact reason when it was signed and it was in the legislatures intent memo. I don’t know how it hasn’t been challenged under packingham but i’m to poor to do it

  3. Eric Knight

    Of course, it doesn’t affect Facebook’s policy of booting registrants from the platform, but it decriminalizes the ability to join or to disclose it in the first place. However, the ruling infers that if a registrant joins and uses a fictitious name, then he can still be criminally charged. Weird.

    • Tim in WI

      It is the saints intended market niche, plain and simple. It is a prime example of the database infrastructure ability to muddy, cloud, or obfuscate sovereignty and borders. It is an electronic CLOUD in which domestic surveillance occupies.

  4. Mike

    This is a big deal. The wording used in New York is taken straight from AWA. It is used in many states. I don’t know if anyone has data on the number of registrants that have a FTR for internet identifiers, but there could be many. This would also mean that as long as you use a registered email address that you could sign up for any service with it without having to go to the sheriff’s office each time. That is a huge relief as most of us use the internet and services and it is a hassle to register each site.

    I have always felt that the requirement to divulge identifiers is a form of compelled speech…which is illegal. If you don’t disclose it and they search for it, they must have probable cause or it is illegal. **I realize our rights are violated left and right so just being on the registry is probable cause in some way. I am not sure why it hasn’t been fought in court (or at least I haven’t heard of it).

    • Bernie S.

      My stupid but what is AWA?

      My acronyms are a little rusty.

      Thanks in advance………..

      • SR

        SR @ Bernie S. – AWA is Adam Walsh Act. It’s named after the murdered son of John Walsh, host of America’s Most Wanted. I don’t believe there was any evidence of sexual assault, but it’s largely being used against people on the registry.

    • AJ

      I don’t know that it’s a big deal, I see it as a well-crafted parsing of the statute. Essentially the RC’s argument, upheld here, is that NY requires disclosure of one’s IDs, but not the sites (e.g. FB) on which they are used. Had the RC used a pseudonym on FB, he would have had to disclose that ID…but seemingly still not tell where it’s used.

      Unfortunately, the legislature will probably write another set of pointless laws to nail down this “loophole.” (Funny how their innocent mistakes are loopholes, but ours are criminal intent.) However, I foresee them again gumming it up by trying to define each and every website/platform one needs to report and those which one can omit. What a bunch of maroons.

      As to your belief it’s a form of compelled speech, I have to say no it’s not. Compelled Speech is when the Government makes you say ITS message. The messages here are yours, not the Government’s, so it cannot be compelled speech. Instead, it’s a chilling effect on one’s (anonymous, online) Free Speech. There are cases across the country where courts have ruled each way on this, with some saying it’s an unconstitutional burden and others saying it’s sufficiently tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest, so it seems to be still a mixed bag on outcomes.

      • Tim

        I’ve a theory, ever since Packingham decided & ” speech” is implicated by the indenture to SORNA databases a red flag was hoisted. FACEBOOK is a direct reflection of the people’s intent- that is to impose affirmative disability upon usually lawful behavior and speech via firms choice.

        When even basic rights to lawful association and assembly are impacted that signals the courts of something very dangerous in play. We see them attempting to throw on the breaks, packingham, Grady but it may be too late.

        • AJ

          I think where the whole thing will come to a pinch point and/or crashing down is being played out right now with Trump (and now AOC) and Twitter. If the government official on a platform cannot ban me from listening AND SPEAKING, how is it the platform owner can do so? I think still and again FB, et al., are in murky waters as to how they can ban some citizens from petitioning their Government officials, while the officials themselves cannot.

          In the physical realm, I’m keeping tabs on my public representatives to see if and when they have a public event at a school. I am not allowed on school grounds if there’s anyone under 18 present. Period. I can’t wait to see what is said about offending my First Amendment rights just because a kid is in the audience. The best chance for me will be a nearby town that has a community center that’s on school property. Come to papa….!

        • Will Allen

          AJ, Tim, etc.:

          I’m certainly not well versed on the legalities of it all but I can kind of see that it would be okay for private companies to ban Registered People (RPs). But who else could they ban? If they can ban RPs, then they certainly ought to be able to also say something like, “Any person who has ever been convicted of any crime anywhere is banned.” Who else and what other categories? I guess everyone except “gays” and “coloreds”.

          That aside, I really, really don’t understand how it is legal AT ALL for any government (or government funded) entity to use Facecrook, Nextdoor, etc. That certainly should not be legal. All over Amerika, governments post useful information on Facecrook. Very often citizens discuss it. How can that be legal if some citizens are blocked? I think it is criminal and an act of war. I’ll harm anyone who supports that.

          Speaking of which, I’ve been in numerous fights on Facecrook with a number of criminal regimes. They are ALL like a classic criminal regime in that they are ALL very, very interested in stopping all criticism and silencing any dissidents. Most of them are so criminal that they want to arrest people who criticize them. Talk about a danger to public safety!

          I’ve had one sheriff who will report me to Facecrook again and again. I create a Facecrook account, post criticism on the sheriff’s Facecrook, they report me, and Facecrook kills the account. Then we do it again. They are true criminal scum. They want everyone to look at their Facecrook page and believe that everyone loves them and thinks they are just so necessary for good life. But only true idiots believe their lying propaganda.

        • CR

          I believe that government should not be permitted to use private forums to disseminate public information or invite public comment unless that forum is also forbidden from permanently banning anyone from participating.

        • AJ

          @Will Allen:
          ‘If they can ban RPs, then they certainly ought to be able to also say something like, “Any person who has ever been convicted of any crime anywhere is banned.” Who else and what other categories? I guess everyone except “gays” and “coloreds”’.
          FB, H0me Dep0t, the corner liquor store, or any other business can refuse service or engagement with anyone it chooses, so long as that refusal is not BASED on one’s membership in a protected class. Criminality is not a protected class, so yes, every single business could ban every single person ever convicted of any offense. (They could also ban all people NOT ever convicted of an offense.) At the Federal level, banning “gays” is perfectly legal; many States have passed civil rights laws to cover sexual preferences. “Colored” would be a racial discrimination and violates Federal (and probably State) law.

          To recap, the federally protected classes (formerly called the 7 deadly sins) are: race, color, national origin, religion, sex (or gender), age (over 40), and disability. “Disability” includes pregnancy and genetic abnormalities.

          “That aside, I really, really don’t understand how it is legal AT ALL for any government (or government funded) entity to use Facecrook, Nextdoor, etc. That certainly should not be legal. All over Amerika, governments post useful information on Facecrook. Very often citizens discuss it. How can that be legal if some citizens are blocked?”
          That’s what I’d like to know too. I suspect the way the public officials get around it is by also publishing the info in paper form somewhere/somehow, and/or on their official government pages. I’m not so sure social media and their ilk are going to continue to be able to hide behind Section 230. There’s too much chatter going on about it right now for it to just die off. What exactly the chuckleheads in Congress will do, IDK.

        • Will Allen


          That’s all exactly as I’ve always understood it.

          The problem for the criminal regimes is that they can’t put anything where the public can discuss it if some of the public is intentionally prevented from participating. No American would ever think that was okay. Anyone who does needs to be deported ASAP. By any means.

  5. Tim

    AJ, CR, WA,
    Saying ” no” is the very heart of the right to remain silent to gov questioning. Without the ability to say ” no” zero liberty exists against authoritarian rule. By justifying registration all citizens lost (unknowingly gave up) their right NOT to have an electronic gov file on them, and their personal biometric data stored to be used by whoever. FB seriously collects known registrants email addresses via some other list gathered via registration law. As I will soon explain to a jury. State create an online identity first then it’s used specifically by firm TOS to impose affirmative restraint ( as any baker is free to do, lol) The key is ” individual determination ” versus broad brush. The preamble painted with a thin brush in the Whetterling act, this withstood scrutiny, but gov USE of a database consumes all by equal protection.

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 *