Considering the absolutely massive number of Americans a Supreme Court ruling could affect, one would hope they will hear it.

We’ve been told that the attorneys will seek cert from the Supreme Court. However, the chances of it being heard are slim. The Supreme Court has discretion in the cases it accepts on a petition for certiorari and normally grants 1% of the petitions it receives each year.

1. Facebook sucks. It’s highly commercial and it’s practically worthless. The LAST thing I want is my REAL NAME connected with personal events in my life online where anyone can read or see it. Thanks to the registry, my real name is a source of shame for me and I now go by my middle name instead when I introduce myself to people. Way to destroy my identity, legal system!

2. There is STILL a lot of MONEY to be made from constantly fueling and ramping ip the sex offender hysteria. The local news is still running several sex stories per week – nearly every day – , politicians are still using the hysteria as a source of their laughable “tough on crime” stance while committing sex crimes themselves, and celebrity comedians are still using sex offenses (Jared and Cosby) as a punchline and a source for cheap laughs from the low hanging fruit of society.

Because of those two things, it is a very hard uphill battle to change ANY legislature division to change policies regarding RSOs. It’s ridiculous and needs to change, but it’s a long road yet. My advice would be to use sites like RSOL to network. We’re all communicating HERE right? Let the general public have Facebook. It’s really not worth bothering with. They will NEVER stop us being able to communicate with each other – even if we have to make paper newsletters again and hold local meetings.

Facebook does indeed bar registrants from maintaining profiles pursuant to its agreement with the state attorneys general who worked to compel Facebook’s adoption of the policy. This policy is primarily the reason Facebook is currently pushing back against complaints from legitimate users who would prefer not to use their real names and faces on their FB accounts. If FB were to change it’s “real name and picture” policy, it could no longer effectively police the creation of accounts by registrants. With regard to the NC case, a writ for certiorari is being sought from the US supreme Court. But since it’s entirely at the discretion of SCOTUS to grant what writs it chooses, the likelihood of the Packingham case finding relief, or even a hearing, before the highest court is extremely narrow.

The proper way to tailor a social media restriction is to “forbid any sexual offender from using Facebook, etc. as a medium through which to establish or attempt to establish contact with a minor.” In other words, the prohibition should be on a specific criminal behavior. This law is overly broad in its scope and goes far beyond the alleged governmental interest being furthered by passage of this law. To wit: protecting children from contact with sexual offenders.

I also agree with finding the true statistics regarding registered sexual offenders who have actually used Facebook to establish contact with a child and groom them / lure them into a sexual encounter. I’ll bet the instances of such happening will overwhelmingly be committed by someone not on any sex offender registry and who has no criminal background at all.

Doesn’t Facebook have its own policy that denies accounts to RSOs regardless of what any local statute may say?

We’re going to eventually get to a point where there is no way around having to use social media. And the courts need to get over themselves.

Don’t worry Fred. We won’t tell anyone that you’re posting here! haha JK But, you make a very important point. And I wholeheartedly agree. There is simply no doubting the fact that SOs are a unique minority in that our rights to organize and advocate are hampered by the very things we are most needful of organizing and advocating against. Being deprived of ubiquitous forums for speech and advocacy (such as Facebook) is a powerful contribution to our opponents’ hopes of maintaining control over our opportunities for growth, moral support, and public acceptance. But if you read David’s entire blog posting, you see that there is an even greater danger to the broader public whenever our courts play games with the legitimate reach of First Amendment protections.