Supreme Court Strikes Down Sex Offender Social Media Ban

danarhea · Jun 20, 2017

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina law Monday that bars convicted sex offenders from Facebook, Twitter and other popular sites.

The justices ruled unanimously in favor of North Carolina resident Lester Packingham Jr. His Facebook boast about beating a traffic ticket led to his conviction for violating a 2008 law aimed at keeping sex offenders off internet sites children might use.

I'd like to know what the hell SCOTUS was thinking when they decided that, once a child predator was out of prison, he could go back to preying on children, using social media, which is the most common avenue these vermin have to children.

Look at it this way - If someone goes to prison for a violent crime, he can't own a gun until his rights are restored. Makes sense to me. Why not ban child molesters from the internet? A violent criminal typically uses a weapon to commit his crime. And, in the hands of a child molester, the internet is his weapon of choice, which he uses to bring a lifetime of grief to his victims. The vast majority of these deviants will never be cured of their perversion. In the name of God, why should we give that weapon back to him to use yet again. The raping of a child is an act of violence. If a child molester want to get the news, let him get it from his ****ing TV, which he can't use to stalk kids.

To put it bluntly, this case was wrongly decided. Period. End of discussion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rt-strikes-down-sex-offender-social-media-ban

Captain Adverse · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
I'd like to know what the hell SCOTUS was thinking when they decided that, once a child predator was out of prison, he could go back to preying on children, using social media, which is the most common avenue these vermin have to children.

Look at it this way - If someone goes to prison for a violent crime, he can't own a gun until his rights are restored. Makes sense to me. Why not ban child molesters from the internet? A violent criminal typically uses a weapon to commit his crime. And, in the hands of a child molester, the internet is his weapon of choice, which he uses to bring a lifetime of grief to his victims. The vast majority of these deviants will never be cured of their perversion. In the name of God, why should we give that weapon back to him to use yet again. The raping of a child is an act of violence. If a child molester want to get the news, let him get it from his ****ing TV, which he can't use to stalk kids.

To put it bluntly, this case was wrongly decided. Period. End of discussion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rt-strikes-down-sex-offender-social-media-ban

How about because in THIS day and age, use of the internet and often also social media is almost a requirement to negotiate one's work and daily life.

Also, sex offenders are not all child molesters. Many are people who were charged for crimes in one state which are not crimes in other states, and there are several other categories beyond simply rapists and child molesters.

Meanwhile, whatever happened to do the crime, do the time, paid your debt?

If you want REAL change, advocate for dangerous and repeat sex offenders to be sent to a prison psychiatric facility with no release unless validated by a full and unanimous panel of psychiatric practitioners.

truthatallcost · Jun 20, 2017

Captain Adverse said:
How about because in THIS day and age, use of the internet and often also social media is almost a requirement to negotiate one's work and daily life.

Also, sex offenders are not all child molesters. Many are people who were charged for crimes in one state which are not crimes in other states, and there are several other categories beyond simply rapists and child molesters.

Meanwhile, whatever happened to do the crime, do the time, paid your debt?

If you want REAL change, advocate for dangerous sex offenders to be sent to a prison psychiatric facility with no release unless validated by a full and unanimous panel of psychiatric practitioners.

I'd like to see no release period for habitual sexual offenders, but my sense of justice isn't very popular these days.

The distinction definitely needs to be made between incurable sex offenders and people who made 1 mistake that they'll never repeat after incarceration.

RabidAlpaca · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
I'd like to know what the hell SCOTUS was thinking when they decided that, once a child predator was out of prison, he could go back to preying on children, using social media, which is the most common avenue these vermin have to children.

Look at it this way - If someone goes to prison for a violent crime, he can't own a gun until his rights are restored. Makes sense to me. Why not ban child molesters from the internet? A violent criminal typically uses a weapon to commit his crime. And, in the hands of a child molester, the internet is his weapon of choice, which he uses to bring a lifetime of grief to his victims. The vast majority of these deviants will never be cured of their perversion. In the name of God, why should we give that weapon back to him to use yet again. The raping of a child is an act of violence. If a child molester want to get the news, let him get it from his ****ing TV, which he can't use to stalk kids.

To put it bluntly, this case was wrongly decided. Period. End of discussion.

Why don't we permanently ban people caught stealing from ALL stores? Or people caught money laundering from ever owning money ever again? Most registered "sex offenders" are not convicted rapists, you can get put on that list for about a thousand things, many of which are quite innocent, like walking outside a bar at night and peeing near an empty playground.

The government should not be policing what people legally do online and it's counter-productive to permanently punish someone for something they've already done their time for. Also comparing gun ownership to visiting websites is silly.

Hawkeye10 · Jun 20, 2017

Holy crap, a second 8-0 decision and right in one day?

This court is looking to do better by the looks of it, R's should be very concerned about the gerrymander case, cause I am getting confident that they are going to act!

calamity · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
I'd like to know what the hell SCOTUS was thinking when they decided that, once a child predator was out of prison, he could go back to preying on children, using social media, which is the most common avenue these vermin have to children.

Look at it this way - If someone goes to prison for a violent crime, he can't own a gun until his rights are restored. Makes sense to me. Why not ban child molesters from the internet? A violent criminal typically uses a weapon to commit his crime. And, in the hands of a child molester, the internet is his weapon of choice, which he uses to bring a lifetime of grief to his victims. The vast majority of these deviants will never be cured of their perversion. In the name of God, why should we give that weapon back to him to use yet again. The raping of a child is an act of violence. If a child molester want to get the news, let him get it from his ****ing TV, which he can't use to stalk kids.

To put it bluntly, this case was wrongly decided. Period. End of discussion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rt-strikes-down-sex-offender-social-media-ban

I disagree. SCOTUS didn't say he can go on FB to troll for little kids. That's still illegal. They just said that he has a right to use the site legally like everyone else.

calamity · Jun 20, 2017

truthatallcost said:
I'd like to see no release period for habitual sexual offenders, but my sense of justice isn't very popular these days.

The distinction definitely needs to be made between incurable sex offenders and people who made 1 mistake that they'll never repeat after incarceration.

Slightly off topic, but what irks me is when a court or prosecution takes someone with multiple child molestation charges and rolls them all into one for expediency. No. He's not a first offender. He is a repeat offender who was only for the first time caught.

JMaximus · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
I'd like to know what the hell SCOTUS was thinking when they decided that, once a child predator was out of prison, he could go back to preying on children, using social media, which is the most common avenue these vermin have to children.

They most certainly weren't thinking that "once a child predator was out of prison, he could go back to preying on children, using social media".

Doing that is still illegal.

But liking a picture of a grilled cheese isn't the same as hitting kids up for sex. And forever barring people from engaging in perfectly normal and otherwise legal behavior after serving out a sentence for a crime is unconstitutional.

Look at it this way - If someone goes to prison for a violent crime, he can't own a gun until his rights are restored. Makes sense to me. Why not ban child molesters from the internet?

The whole Internet!?

If a child molester want to get the news, let him get it from his ****ing TV, which he can't use to stalk kids.

The Internet is more than just news. It's almost an essential service for modern life.

It's unconstitutional, not to mention assholishly barbaric, to indefinitely strip someone of their right to accessing such a service as punishment for a crime.

To put it bluntly, this case was wrongly decided. Period. End of discussion.

To put it bluntly, you're an authoritarian dick.

Period.

End of discussion.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 20, 2017

calamity said:
Slightly off topic, but what irks me is when a court or prosecution takes someone with multiple child molestation charges and rolls them all into one for expediency. No. He's not a first offender. He is a repeat offender who was only for the first time caught.

Plea deals are the rule and (contested) trials are the exception. Visit a courtroom and you will be amazed at how many 2 minute "trials" that you see. The person may have been arrested for (and charged with) A, B and C but the "trial" consists of them pleading guilty to Q "as charged" and getting a reduced sentence for "cooperating" with the state.

AliHajiSheik · Jun 20, 2017

If someone receives a sentence and they comply with that sentence, then their punishment should end. If they want to permanently block someone, then that should be part of their sentence up front.

fmw · Jun 20, 2017

I agree with the decision. The internet is not inherently bad. It can be used for bad things. We have to learn that banning things is not a way to legislate. Banning behaviors is. Child predation is already illegal. This law wouldn't have been enforceable and, as others have said, the internet has uses other than finding children to abuse. I understand the motivation for the law and agree with it. I just don't think the law itself has any merit.

calamity · Jun 20, 2017

ttwtt78640 said:
Plea deals are the rule and (contested) trials are the exception. Visit a courtroom and you will be amazed at how many 2 minute "trials" that you see. The person may have been arrested for (and charged with) A, B and C but the "trial" consists of them pleading guilty to Q "as charged" and getting a reduced sentence for "cooperating" with the state.

Yep. Expediency rules, justice takes a back seat.

Harshaw · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
I'd like to know what the hell SCOTUS was thinking when they decided that, once a child predator was out of prison, he could go back to preying on children, using social media, which is the most common avenue these vermin have to children.

Look at it this way - If someone goes to prison for a violent crime, he can't own a gun until his rights are restored. Makes sense to me. Why not ban child molesters from the internet? A violent criminal typically uses a weapon to commit his crime. And, in the hands of a child molester, the internet is his weapon of choice, which he uses to bring a lifetime of grief to his victims. The vast majority of these deviants will never be cured of their perversion. In the name of God, why should we give that weapon back to him to use yet again. The raping of a child is an act of violence. If a child molester want to get the news, let him get it from his ****ing TV, which he can't use to stalk kids.

To put it bluntly, this case was wrongly decided. Period. End of discussion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rt-strikes-down-sex-offender-social-media-ban

It's only a bad decision if the law was misapplied. It's not a bad decision because it leads to a result you, or anyone, find distasteful.

Can you parse the actual decision and find a misapplication of the law?

jonny5 · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
I'd like to know what the hell SCOTUS was thinking when they decided that, once a child predator was out of prison, he could go back to preying on children, using social media, which is the most common avenue these vermin have to children.

Look at it this way - If someone goes to prison for a violent crime, he can't own a gun until his rights are restored. Makes sense to me. Why not ban child molesters from the internet? A violent criminal typically uses a weapon to commit his crime. And, in the hands of a child molester, the internet is his weapon of choice, which he uses to bring a lifetime of grief to his victims. The vast majority of these deviants will never be cured of their perversion. In the name of God, why should we give that weapon back to him to use yet again. The raping of a child is an act of violence. If a child molester want to get the news, let him get it from his ****ing TV, which he can't use to stalk kids.

To put it bluntly, this case was wrongly decided. Period. End of discussion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rt-strikes-down-sex-offender-social-media-ban

But how was it wrongly decided? You made an emotional argument, but Justice is blind. Where is your LEGAL argument that 'govt banning released criminals from speech' is just and legal?

American · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
I'd like to know what the hell SCOTUS was thinking when they decided that, once a child predator was out of prison, he could go back to preying on children, using social media, which is the most common avenue these vermin have to children.

Look at it this way - If someone goes to prison for a violent crime, he can't own a gun until his rights are restored. Makes sense to me. Why not ban child molesters from the internet? A violent criminal typically uses a weapon to commit his crime. And, in the hands of a child molester, the internet is his weapon of choice, which he uses to bring a lifetime of grief to his victims. The vast majority of these deviants will never be cured of their perversion. In the name of God, why should we give that weapon back to him to use yet again. The raping of a child is an act of violence. If a child molester want to get the news, let him get it from his ****ing TV, which he can't use to stalk kids.

To put it bluntly, this case was wrongly decided. Period. End of discussion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rt-strikes-down-sex-offender-social-media-ban

Good, then let's end the thread.

ludin · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
I'd like to know what the hell SCOTUS was thinking when they decided that, once a child predator was out of prison, he could go back to preying on children, using social media, which is the most common avenue these vermin have to children.

Look at it this way - If someone goes to prison for a violent crime, he can't own a gun until his rights are restored. Makes sense to me. Why not ban child molesters from the internet? A violent criminal typically uses a weapon to commit his crime. And, in the hands of a child molester, the internet is his weapon of choice, which he uses to bring a lifetime of grief to his victims. The vast majority of these deviants will never be cured of their perversion. In the name of God, why should we give that weapon back to him to use yet again. The raping of a child is an act of violence. If a child molester want to get the news, let him get it from his ****ing TV, which he can't use to stalk kids.

To put it bluntly, this case was wrongly decided. Period. End of discussion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rt-strikes-down-sex-offender-social-media-ban

as much as I hate it but the court is right on this one.
the state can restrict but not outright ban.

it can require them to keep a log of their internet activity but they can't just outright ban it.

jdog21 · Jun 20, 2017

Freedom of speech. Who cares if he is a sexual preditor, he's allowed to have a social media life just like the rest of us. Teach your kids to not be on social media

danarhea · Jun 20, 2017

OK, I've seen some pretty harsh responses, so let me ask you this - Should felons who committed violent crimes be allowed to have guns? After all, we are talking about an "inalienable right" here. What about voting? Should state laws blocking felons voting be done away with? The rights I have brought up here are explicitly given as rights in the Constitution.

Carjosse · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
OK, I've seen some pretty harsh responses, so let me ask you this - Should felons who committed violent crimes be allowed to have guns? After all, we are talking about an "inalienable right" here. What about voting? Should state laws blocking felons voting be done away with? The rights I have brought up here are explicitly given as rights in the Constitution.

The internet can be used for many other things, a gun cannot. I think it would be fair to replace their restrictions on their internet usage for an amount of time though, like it has to be supervised or something.

Skeptic Bob · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
OK, I've seen some pretty harsh responses, so let me ask you this - Should felons who committed violent crimes be allowed to have guns? After all, we are talking about an "inalienable right" here. What about voting? Should state laws blocking felons voting be done away with? The rights I have brought up here are explicitly given as rights in the Constitution.

I actually do believe once you have served your time, and any probation, you should get all those rights back. if they are too dangerous to get their rights back then they are too dangerous to be released.

volsrock · Jun 20, 2017

A sex offender for a minor offence can move close to you and you will get a flyer in mail and u can go online see where he works car he drives etc. A killer can get out of prison after 30 years move close to you and you and u wont get nothing in mail, and no web site dedicated to him.

GhostlyJoe · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
OK, I've seen some pretty harsh responses, so let me ask you this - Should felons who committed violent crimes be allowed to have guns? After all, we are talking about an "inalienable right" here. What about voting? Should state laws blocking felons voting be done away with? The rights I have brought up here are explicitly given as rights in the Constitution.

Yes, felons who have served their time and been released should have their rights restored. Absolutely to all of the above. The high court ruled correctly in both this case and in the Redskins case.

volsrock · Jun 20, 2017

GhostlyJoe said:
Yes, felons who have served their time and been released should have their rights restored. Absolutely to all of the above. The high court ruled correctly in both this case and in the Redskins case.

Sex Offenders who have served their time, DO not have a right to privacy, killers do!

GhostlyJoe · Jun 20, 2017

volsrock said:
Sex Offenders who have served their time, DO not have a right to privacy, killers do!

Im against the registries, housing restrictions, and all similar lifelong punishments. Such restrictions can be appropriate on a probationary basis within set time parameters. Key is, we shouldn't be letting proven predatory pedophiles back into our communities anyway.

volsrock · Jun 20, 2017

danarhea said:
I'd like to know what the hell SCOTUS was thinking when they decided that, once a child predator was out of prison, he could go back to preying on children, using social media, which is the most common avenue these vermin have to children.

Look at it this way - If someone goes to prison for a violent crime, he can't own a gun until his rights are restored. Makes sense to me. Why not ban child molesters from the internet? A violent criminal typically uses a weapon to commit his crime. And, in the hands of a child molester, the internet is his weapon of choice, which he uses to bring a lifetime of grief to his victims. The vast majority of these deviants will never be cured of their perversion. In the name of God, why should we give that weapon back to him to use yet again. The raping of a child is an act of violence. If a child molester want to get the news, let him get it from his ****ing TV, which he can't use to stalk kids.

To put it bluntly, this case was wrongly decided. Period. End of discussion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rt-strikes-down-sex-offender-social-media-ban

Guess we should ban them from the phone and cars. They might use a car to stalk and locate a victim

Supreme Court Strikes Down Sex Offender Social Media Ban

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

truthatallcost

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

JMaximus

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

AliHajiSheik

fmw

calamity

Privileged

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

jonny5

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

ludin

jdog21

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna

Skeptic Bob

volsrock

GhostlyJoe

volsrock

GhostlyJoe

volsrock