ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

National

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

[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...  
  • 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 do not solicit funds
  • 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.  
 
12 Comments
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.

Not to mention that the laws they whine for would not have done one damn thing to prevent the circumstance they complain of to begin with. Let’s review: 1. Jacob Wetterling: Danny Heinrich had no previous sex crime convictions and wouldn’t have been registered had it existed at the time, nor would it have made a difference if he was. Though ID’d shortly after Wetterling’s disappearance as a possible suspect, shoddy police work – not the absence of a registry – was the reason he remained at large for as long as he did. 2. Adam Walsh: Walsh was not… Read more »

Agree with you @ Dustin john walsh is rotten man for using his dead son too make millions off him. But the worst of the worst is the mothers. Who neglected to watch their kids and keep the child safe. In my book any mother who don’t keep a close eye on their kids should be held countable too. Same for fathers. Or anyone who is supposed to watch a child. I do agree the persons who took the child should be jail for a long time. But it was just not him/her alone. If the parent was doing there… Read more »

John Walsh will get his due as a Pharisee in today’s world using his son as a bully pulpit to stand on in the next world at least and maybe in this one yet. His misguided ways of using Adam how he does won’t go unnoticed.

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.

That may actually be how IML will actually be attacked in the future. Though that’s a more difficult battle as it’s federal rather than state. And federal changes seem to be way more difficult unless SCOTUS happens to rule on them (which I actually thought they already did on barring of registrants on social media?)

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. https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1330323111867199488?s=19

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.

12
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.