It sounds like your situation coincided with the crackdown then and may also be attributed to your state. Maybe i created my account well after the hysteria of that died down, I’m not sure. I’ve been put in what’s called “Facebook jail” and still kept my account though. I will be ready to sue them from a business standpoint if they do though because I use fb pages and advertising for my business.

If my issue with Facebook deleting 2 of my accounts had anything to do with Probation, I’d have been under violation.
No one “turned me in” and the 2nd profile I made had no friends on it. I did it as a test page. It was up for a couple of weeks until I posted my pic, then, about 48 hours later *poof* gone!

My first FB page was up for approx 4 yrs and man I’m pissed that it was deleted. Lots of fond memories were shared on there and I was also a part of some of the classic horror movie collector groups where I ended up selling a very rare movie that’s only ever been released in Japan on VHS for a whopping $500!!! And that was the price the guy offered to me. I didn’t really want to sell it since I’ll likely never be able to find another one again all these years after the death of VHS.

Man, I was piiiiiiiissssed.
It happened AFTER the states AG’s cracked down on FB to get RSO’s off the site. They must certainly have some type of facial recognition software.
If you haven’t been “caught” by the FB safety team yet, eventually you might be. And it’s a pain in the butt when you lose all your stuff that’s posted there.

Maestro, I am an RSO with my real name and my ugly mug in the profile picture for about 3 years or so now and have yet to have a problem. I don’t talk about my status at all on Facebook though and many of my “friends” are completely unaware. On the other hand, Derek Logue of oncefallen.com actually has a Facebook page that has not been removed yet to my knowledge and he talks about the registry and his association with it often.

I’m only saying this because it appears that your situation is rather unusual. I do remember previous comments by you on this forum about being on parole/probation and complaining about that though. Do you think that may have been something to do with that?

See I don’t want to be wise or the great philosophy thinker on here because I don’t have a brain like some.

Now I will be going to trail on Tuesday on an issue similar to this one. I couldn’t care less about face book, mind space or whatever its called or any of those things like twitter or The Twilight Zone or interacting with others if that’s the case. I think you all just want to be intimidated by all this.

Remember you can’t start a fire without a spark but than you should know how to put out a fire when it starts.

Aside from the issue about the internet one has to remember how they got involved in all this to start with? One has to say can man actually take all of our rights away, can man shove a piece of paper right in front of you and make you sigh it or if you don’t that is contempt. Can man drain your bank account to pay off your fines and other charges? When you as thinkers can come up with the answer you let me know.

Sometimes I wonder if a person can’t change their socks with a manual to tell them how to do it.

Yes, the so laws are “feel good” laws that do little to nothing to prevent sex-related offenses. They win political points for many politician. Not much else.

Thanks, rwvnral; that’s what happens when someone who can’t read a legal decision without her eyes rolling back in her head — me –tries to comment on legal issues. Let’s leave your comments, Just a few thoughts; I’ve learned something and therefore others might also. And you were right to begin with.

Heck, just delete my two comments (the initial one here and the oops follow up) to avoid any further comments.

I do want Packingham overturned or reversed, but now it appears to be just more confusing with the thread.

haha. Forgive me, but you’re both wrong. We don’t want the Court to “uphold” Packingham since, by doing so, that would mean that it agrees with the outcome below (NC Sup Ct). We want them to overturn Packingham….or you might also say reverse. The confusion may stem from the relationship of the person, Packingham, and the case, Packingham. Separate the man from the case, and it may follow more logically. It’s outcomes (cases) that matter most. Right now, the most recent outcome in Packingham is NOT what we desire. Therefore, it is NOT what we want upheld.

You are correct, Sandy. Uphold Packingham, overturn NC law.

Since Packingham is the petitioner and N.C. the defendant, I believe, based on most of what you say, that you mean “Uphold Packingham; overturn the N.C. law.”
Correct me if I am wrong.