Supreme Court Rules Sex Offenders Can't Be Barred From Social Media (gizmodo.com) 114
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina law that prevents sex offenders from posting on social media where children might be present, saying it "impermissibly restricts lawful speech." In doing so, the Supreme Court asserted what we all know to be true: Posting is essential to the survival of the republic. The court ruled that to "foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights." The court correctly noted that "one of the most important places to exchange views is cyberspace." The North Carolina law was ruled to be overly broad, barring "access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge."
Re:Unanimous?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Too... many... unanimous... decisions... head... exploding...
Historically, most SCOTUS decisions have been unanimous, and the proportion has actually been growing in recent years.
Most decisions are either 9-0 or 5-4 [slashdot.org]. The 9-0 decisions are common when it is a matter of the law, as in this case. The 5-4 decisions are common when it is a partisan issue.
Re:Unanimous?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, I flubbed the cut-and-paste for the citation. Here it is: Most decisions are either 9-0 or 5-4 [slate.com]. Scroll down for a graph of 9-0 vs 5-4 decisions.
Bummer (Score:1, Troll)
Re: I always wonder where they get all those kids. (Score:2)
So, how long before it happens again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, some politicians are planning how best they can pass a new law that will do exactly the same, but be just different enough that it can be tied up in court for a few years before being struck down.
Sex offenders are perhaps the most reviled people in the US. Any law which causes them difficulty is an easy pass with overwhelming public support.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather live next to a sex offender than live next to a politician, just as I'd rather live next to a "gun nut" with a vast arsenal of weaponry than live next to a cop.
Don't even get me started on rabid raccoons vs. Floridians.
When too much punishment is never enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
My local police (like many in the US) has a special web page showing convicted sex offenders.
There is no page showing convicted murderers; somehow the normal public record of that was enough...
What's wrong with this picture?...
Re:When too much punishment is never enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
My local police (like many in the US) has a special web page showing convicted sex offenders.
My neighbor is on the list ... for having sex with his wife. At the time, he was 18 and she was 15. Her parents disapproved and called the police to break up the relationship. He got probation, but still went on the list for life. They were married on her 18th birthday. Her parents didn't come to the wedding.
Because he is a "child molestor" he cannot go to PTA meetings, parent-teacher conferences, or even step foot in a school.
Their son is my son's best friend. Do I worry about him playing at their house? Of course not.
I am not sure if the sex offender list is a good or bad idea in principle, but the way it is actually implemented is idiotic.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: When too much punishment is never enough... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of when suicide was illegal. If someone survived a suicide attempt they would be charged with a crime against themselves and sent to jail.
Re: (Score:1)
In many areas suicide is still illegal. The cynic in me says it's mostly because if you commit a felony, the state can legally seize your assets. Making it a felony, not only do they get your stuff, but conveniently there isn't anyone around to argue.
Re: (Score:2)
I think successful suicide should be a capital offense.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, take his word for it.
There is no need to take his word for it. Criminal court documents are public records.
Re: (Score:2)
Was about to write something similar, regarding 'idiotic' laws in the US.
In Europe in most countries we have also a bit arbitrary laws regarding that. In Germany it is more or less like this: both partners need to be above 14 (which is actually also the legal age for marriage if both sides parents agree), if one partner is 21 or above, the other one needs to be 16 at least. Of course prostitution is forbidden for people below 18.
The idea that you can only have sex when you are over 18 (as in many US states)
Re: (Score:3)
Convicted murderers are often released early, or released once their sentence is up.
The "sex offender" brand is for life. If someone's dangerous they should still be serving their sentence. If someone has served their sentence they shouldn't be treated as criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Another reason this is asinine: treat someone as if they were (still) guilty of something long enough, and they might just decide to hell with it, they might as well be guilty of something. Which is just a brilliant position to put a sex offender into.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, probably the thing is that murders are just humans having made a mistake, while sex offenders clearly are monsters that will rape, pillage and murder...oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
If you watch this lecture [youtube.com] by David Lisak, for example, while he exudes rigor and professionalism, he does seem to hold to this viewpoint and does his best to defend it. The only qualifier in that lecture is a sing
Re: (Score:3)
Sex offenders are perhaps the most reviled people in the US. Any law which causes them difficulty is an easy pass with overwhelming public support.
Actually, politicians are the most reviled people in the US and it's damn near impossible to get any law to limit them in spite of overwhelming public support. :)
Gorsuch makes his mark (Score:1)
Look for numerous unanimous decisions like this going forward. This guy is going to make SCOTUS great again with his consensus building activities. I bet he could talk Justice Alito into voting for installing a transgender bathroom in the building.
Re: Gorsuch makes his mark (Score:3)
I bet he could talk Justice Alito into voting for installing a transgender bathroom in the building.
assuming classical party-lines, Republicans would have no issue with a 'Trans-specific' bathroom, it would be liberals that would find it offensive.
As a reminder, the issue that this country obsessed about an embarrassingly long time was with the requirement that transgender individuals to use bathrooms that conform with what's between their legs...
Re: (Score:1)
Really, the issue was how rural NC and Charlotte were at odds over how tax revenue should be distributed to rural counties and urban municipalities and how much power Charlotte should have vs. the state legislature in Raleigh. Transgenders just happened to be a convenient battleground, but it was a power struggle between Charlotte and Raleigh, not between Democrats and Republicans. If you read the coverage of the compromise (see NPR on it [npr.org]), you'll find that the state won by imposing a moratorium on any mu
Re: (Score:2)
I bet he could talk Justice Alito into voting for installing a transgender bathroom in the building.
assuming classical party-lines, Republicans would have no issue with a 'Trans-specific' bathroom, it would be liberals that would find it offensive.
As a reminder, the issue that this country obsessed about an embarrassingly long time was with the requirement that transgender individuals to use bathrooms that conform with what's between their legs...
Bathrooms don't have to be gender specific. Like in almost every bathroom in every residential house or apartment everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans wouldn't have an issue with spending public money on someone's "lifestyle choice"? What about when they realize you need three extra bathrooms, one for trans men, one for trans women and one for gender non-conforming individuals?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Score:2)
Look for numerous unanimous decisions like this going forward. This guy is going to make SCOTUS great again with his consensus building activities. I bet he could talk Justice Alito into voting for installing a transgender bathroom in the building.
I rather think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would hold her own in that discussion.
Re: (Score:1)
Only if there are enough bathroom breaks. Well unless she switched to Depends. Then maybe she could hold her own.
Re: (Score:2)
Got to like a Unanimous decision (Score:1)
Makes one feel better about this country.
Pity so many people think have so much evil in their heart and the desire to blame it on someone that society considers an acceptable victim (sex offenders).
When you want to know someone's deepest, darkest, thoughts, ask them to describe their enemy.
Ask an innocent child to do this and they talk about someone stealing toys. Ask an alt-right person and they talk about other races secretly taking over the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not read all of my comment? I repeat - To know someone's deepest, darkest thoughts, ask them what their enemy thinks.
You have revealed what your own deepest, darkest thoughts are. Thanks for the warning.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't. That is what makes this hilarious in their remarks.
Sounds like the right decision (Score:1)
Something narrower- say making it illegal for them to send direct or group messages to a minor, or to make friend requests/add them to groups would seem to be a reasonable law. Barring them altogether prevents them from interactions with adults. And then we get into the whole question of what counts as social media (would a website with a forum be social media? The comments page on a newspaper article? Again this could be very broad).
Re: Sounds like the right decision (Score:2)
To be enforced how? How many teens or or-teens gave their real age when they signed up to Facebook, twitter, etc?
Re: Sounds like the right decision (Score:2)
Teens or Pre-teens
Re: (Score:2)
I have a funny story for that.
Inwas camping in france with a group of friends and French guy with a 4 or 5 year old daughter joined us (married to a maroccean lady).
The girl wanted to use my iPad to go on facebook.
She only had grandmas and grand dads as friends and her profile picture was not herself (don't remember what it was), surprisingly she spoke english, too. Anyway when I looked a bit questioing what she does on my iPad on Facebook she said: "you know, we can put our real age into facebook. That wou
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you define grooming and solicitation? Is just a message to one on a social media site enough? A series? Laws like this are how you define what's punishable and what isn't. If you left it at only the laws from the 80s (or whenever last defined it), you could end up with a situation where by the letter of the law only a telephone call counts, but websites and text messages don't (because they didn't exist at the time and the letter of the law isn't wide enough to include them). Its not just "w
Re: (Score:2)
And this is what the local lawyer consults. The lawyer doesn't guess at it, the legislature defines what it is. This is part of that definition process.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, the legislature writes the law and the courts define what it is. Our legislators apparently can't be bothered to make the laws well-defined enough to get along without case law.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a blanket ban on people who have served their time for their crimes, most often minor offences that got them put onto a list. I have no problems with such provisions being put onto bail or parole for specific persons but not on people who have already served their sentence. These can be places on people who sent a nude selfie or urinated in public just as easily as committed rape.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a minors only internet, running on an separate encrypted protocol. Minors gain access via a student card and teachers and authorised authorities gain access via educators cards and all unlicensed adults are forbidden under threat of criminal penalty. Safe and sure, reason it will not happen, psychopathic marketing companies would no longer be allowed to psychologically target, attack and manipulate children to feed the psychopathic greed of corporate executives.
There should be two internet separa
Whew! (Score:2)
Dodged a bullet with that decision...
As a formerly registered "sex offender"... (Score:5, Interesting)
The best way to reform convicts that are not heavily mentally unbalanced (most offenders are one-time offenders and don't go on to have a long rap sheet, after all!) is to help them build social safety nets and positive relationships. To do something other than pursue those specific goals is to intentionally harm society at large.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely agree. If you are a danger to society, you belong in jail. If you have served your time, or didn't get time - you don't belong on a list.
Re:As a formerly registered "sex offender"... (Score:5, Interesting)
A good friend is on the list. Where I live, anyone can look him up by name or location online. There you will see his photo, current address and a brief description of his 'crime'. Of course he has to keep this data up to date at all times.
"sex offender" seems to be a euphemism for something involving children. I don't think regular rape gets you on the list. Children are special, of course. My friend, during difficulties with his wife, was accused by her of 'touching' their daughter- age around 10. He was convicted without much fuss and put on the 'list'.
The reality is that his wife lied. He was and still is best friends with his daughter- now a young adult and they frequently spend time together. But he remains on the list and there seems no way for him to get off. For the rest of his life he will be branded, in public, and all his neighbors will suspect him if not worse.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think regular rape gets you on the list.
In the US it varies by state, but no: there's a whole host of things which can get you registered as a sex offender. When I lived in Louisiana I had a neighbor who was registered as a sex offender - the description on the card that he had to give to people was that he had "committed a crime against nature." In reality, he had paid a prostitute for oral sex. No children involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Awhile back, I got free ID protection due to a breech, and one of their services was to notify me whenever someone on the sex offender list moved into the area. I was always getting those notifications, and I wondered how many of those were cases like your friend, or an 18-15 romance, or even someone taking a whiz behind the bush.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think regular rape gets you on the list.
I suspect it does, given what else can..
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
These laws that ban sex offenders from social media effectively ban them from society and participation in it.....
That is so much bullshit. I agree with this ruling, but stupid hyperbole like this really doesn't make a good case for why this law needed to be struck down. This is about the only social media I engage with. And even then it's not really often. I am not banned from society. In fact, the reason I'm not really on social media is because I'm way too fucking busy for that. And no, I'm not in mom's basement. I'm flying around the country on business. I'm doing shit in my community.
Anyone who thinks th
Stranger Danger (Score:2)
Sex offenders on social media will make them easier to track.
Re: (Score:2)
They run the same honeypot trap around where we live a couple of times a year on social media with no shortage of arrests at the end of the investigation.
If you're looking for something illegal on the internet, try to remember that law enforcement is, too, and their budget & experience likely top yours.
Re: (Score:2)
No shortage of arrests. But what about convictions? The "To Catch A Predator" series is a farce. Some of the things are outright faked, some of them are complete and obvious miscarriages of justice (such as when as producers are running the "investigation" and not the cops), and otherwise they often fail to get convictions because no actual crime is committed - the person they're communicating with from the "Perverted Justice" (very apt name, by the way) and planning to meet is not an actual minor, but
Re: (Score:2)
To Catch A Predator [nyu.edu] is a ratings gambit much like the Dateline shows that catch contractors scamming the public. [youtube.com]
Nonetheless, the format clearly catches the entrapped in situations that might be uncomfortable to explain.
Comment (Score:2)
I thought the terms of service for many social media sites state people under a certain age are not allowed to use those services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nor the American Citizens interrogated for non-existent Terrorism links
Nor the "Free citizens" banned from living in low-cost housing due to a separate person's misuse of illegal drugs
Nor the victims of the Patriot Act nondisclosures
Nor the women who have lost birth control / abortion access
no, it looks like repigs are all about "Safety" and care nothing about freedom.