UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
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
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. 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.