ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (07/23 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOL Conference Oct 1, 2022 



NY: Federal District Court limits ban on social media for registrants


[Excerpt from page 1:]

While the Court appreciates the State’s compelling interest and laudable efforts to protect children from sex offender recidivists on the internet, New York’s attempt to advance this interest via blanket restrictions cannot be squared with the significant freedom of speech rights at stake. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. While parole officers remain free to impose individualized restrictions on supervisees based on the Registrant’s specific circumstances and risk of recidivating using social media, e-STOP and Directive 9201 are preliminarily enjoined so far as they apply wholesale to Registrants who have not used the internet to facilitate the commission of their underlying sex offense.


Download a PDF of the decision:

NY Eastern District Court Decision to Allow Social Media Case 120-cv-01332-RJD-SJB


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is great and all, but how about issuing an order that prevents social media networks themselves from banning registrants? It doesn’t help the government saying Facebook and what not is a “public square”, when the privare guard at the entrance prevents you from going in.

If social networks want to enjoy the protections of not being responsible for the content the posters post, they shouldn’t be able to exclude people in the first place.

This should be a no-brainer, but we have to fight for mundane issues like this that others use freely and take for granted.

We shouldn’t have to “disclose” anything. Failure for this, failure for that.. all because these mothers FAILED to watch after their kids, then whined to lawmakers to purge their guilt.

Took long enough…

Imagine using this logic to attack IML. If an offender didn’t travel in interstate or foreign commerce to commit their offense, it should not apply.

Maybe it will be appealed and overturned?

I notice the term “Registrant”, instead of “sex offender”, is used throughout the document. Though a somewhat minor detail, it does perhaps indicate a helpful shift in attitude and perspective.

it doesn’t matter in the next 4 years every state in America will enforce the new SORNA Laws its inevitable.

Good luck

Given the clause “so far as they apply wholesale to Registrants who have not used the internet to facilitate the commission of their underlying sex offense” the injunction is not as inclusive as it seems at first blush. Perhaps with the exception of pornography production with no distribution, most pornography offenders as well as enticement offenders would be excluded. This is much more restrictive than the Supreme Court’s Packingham v. North Carolina ruling. Although the district court’s decision seems at odds with Packingham, it is only a preliminary injunction and we must wait for the actual opinion.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x