Comments on: Okay to ban sex offenders from social media? Who’s next?

By: George George George of the Jungle

George George George of the Jungle — Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:49:54 +0000

The headline is, ”
Okay to ban sex offenders from social media? Who’s next?”
Here in my state, they have a registry with various unconstitutional restrictions for meth makers and users, people who fight animals, i.e., dogs and roosters. People who have been busted for domestic violence are also on this registry.
All felonies and misdemeanors will soon be on a register, not because registers work so well, but because registrants must pay a yearly fee (mine is $150) and $100 of that goes to the police who work in that office. The other $50 goes to state government.
They’ll surely argue that they’ll now have to find a way to “pay for that tax cut” because surely to God they want more money, not less.

By: Kendal

Kendal — Tue, 23 May 2017 01:39:08 +0000

Yep, they recently discovered me, and there I went, no notice, no chance to let anyone know, just one day couldn’t log in. I also find it odd that the TOS says convicted sex offenders, and not registered sex offenders. I wonder if that is true or a misprint.

By: rwvnral

rwvnral — Wed, 08 Mar 2017 19:30:17 +0000

In reply to ML. Any ruling by the United States Supreme Court on a constitutional question applies to every state in the nation.

By: ML

ML — Wed, 08 Mar 2017 19:14:21 +0000

I am in Louisiana. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Packingham, will that have an effect on the current Louisiana law banning RSO’s from using social medias?

By: jon

jon — Tue, 07 Mar 2017 15:27:52 +0000

I had a laugh the other day, in my mail was an invitation to join the neighborhood watch group of my area. But to do I would have to go to their Facebook site to register. Now if I go to Facebook, I am committing a crime, lol. Was this an attempt to set me up, or just an over site on their part, I don”t know. All I know is that I wrote them a letter thanking them for their offer, and I would be happy to join their safety group, (something tells me I won’t be hearing from them again) and mailed the letter. I have 6 months of supervision left on my sentence, and I’m not falling for traps.

By: Tasha Willingham

Tasha Willingham — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 20:16:32 +0000

I know of at least one state (Indiana) that banned RSOs from social media, but that statute was ultimately struck down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Basically, the court said that RSOs who have served their time and are not on conditional release, have every right to be on social media. Thus I don’t see the NC issue having anything but a favorable outcome.

Something I would like to see challenged is the requirement for RSOs to provide their “online identifiers” as part of their registration. I know that California’s Prop 35 was struck down in this regard, and I believe Illinois’ as well. I have a boatload of “online identifiers” that takes up a couple of pages; it drives them crazy.

By: rwvnral

rwvnral — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 19:37:46 +0000

In reply to Maestro. North Carolina is unique in that the social network ban is also prohibited by state statute. There are only a couple of states that do this. And, as I've pointed out in other areas, this was a criminal prosecution. This was NOT a lawsuit. Lester Packingham was prosecuted by the state of North Carolina for being on Facebook. He was convicted. He appealed. The Packingham case is a criminal case, not a civil case. As a citizen, Packingham has every right to challenge a criminal conviction on the basis that he believes he was convicted under an unconstitutional statute. We await the high Court's decision.

By: Maestro

Maestro — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 19:33:12 +0000

In reply to rwvnral.

Shouldn’t there have been a lawsuit aimed at the social media sites FIRST? Since it’s THEIR policies banning RSO’s regardless of which states have laws in place about it.
There is no law in Connecticut banning RSO’s from social media, it’s the social media (Facebook more than any others) who enforce their policy and boot you off and delete your profile when they discover you.

By: rwvnral

rwvnral — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 18:56:15 +0000

In reply to H n H. All comments are set to moderation just to prevent someone from posting a comment that is hateful towards our friends and supporters. We have NO FULL TIME STAFF, so everything on the back end is managed by volunteers who are, from time to time, distracted by other obligations. Weekends can be even more difficult for obvious reasons. On occasion, certain comments get accidentally marked as spam and emptied even though there may be a legitimate comment included among those marked as spam. We try to avoid that, but it will occasionally occur. Best practice is to let us know after a reasonable amount of time passes and you fail to see your comment post. But sometimes a "reasonable amount of time" may be a few hours depending on who is moderating comments. Thanks!

By: H n H

H n H — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 18:50:29 +0000

In reply to rwvnral. I wonder about the whole moderation thing. I can understand for authenticity purposes. But I've posted replies and wait. Sometimes what I write isn't even posted, even if it's a direct reply. Makes me wonder if we're really able to speak our thoughts on the subject at hand, or if our thoughts aren't subject to being in line with what the moderators want to hear.