Supreme Court Says Sex Offenders Can Access Social Media

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously this week against a North Carolina law barring convicted sex offenders from using social media, a decision that effectively declares access to social media is protected by the Constitution. The case, Packingham v. North Carolina, was sparked when an offender was caught celebrating the dismissal of a parking ticket on Facebook. Justices believe that convicted criminals could receive legitimate benefits from social media sites that help them improve their lives.

The justices said a North Carolina law that made it a felony for sex offenders to access sites such as Facebook, Snapchat and LinkedIn violated the First Amendment. "To foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "Even convicted criminals — and in some instances, especially convicted criminals — might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives."
 
pendragon1 said:
or find their next victim...
since when is internet access a right?
Click to expand...

Well, since this court case apparently :p

I do feel that access to internet shouldn't be restricted, not sure I feel like losing social network access is a big deal. I use facebook, but if I got banned or my isp blocked it, I probably wouldn't even try going around it, just would be done lol.
 
I was summoned for jury duty today and waiting for whatever. This made me chuckle.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
If a criminal does their time, why restrict their rights afterwards as well?
That and sex offender really isn't specific enough. If you urinate in public and get caught, you're a sex offender.
Click to expand...
first part, depends on what they did and if they are a risk to re-offend then they need to be monitored somehow.
second, WTF?! in 13 states apparently that can happen. did not know that but its fucked up none the less. bible states?
 
pendragon1 said:
or find their next victim...
since when is internet access a right?
Click to expand...

Or, you know, parents could step in to their kids lives and check their social media behaviors or maybe let them know that strangers on social media aren't their friends or any other number of parental possibilities. I'm with you that internet isn't a right, although it's getting so much harder to claim that when almost everything these days requires it in some form. But, I think parents must take an active role in WTF their kids are doing both in the house and at friends houses.
 
pendragon1 said:
or find their next victim...
since when is internet access a right?
Click to expand...

That wasn't the ruling. In fact, there is precedent in denying internet access to criminals who have been convicted of internet crimes.

But in this case, it was access to social media sites that was banned, not internet access.
 
Shotglass01 said:
Or, you know, parents could step in to their kids lives and check their social media behaviors or maybe let them know that strangers on social media aren't their friends or any other number of parental possibilities. I'm with you that internet isn't a right, although it's getting so much harder to claim that when almost everything these days requires it in some form. But, I think parents must take an active role in WTF their kids are doing both in the house and at friends houses.
Click to expand...

yeah that should be a given, teach your kids safety and responsibility, that's your responsibility as a parent.
if you need internet, libraries and job centers all have it for free.
 
pendragon1 said:
first part, depends on what they did and if they are a risk to re-offend then they need to be monitored somehow.
second, WTF?! in 13 states apparently that can happen. did not know that but its fucked up none the less. bible states?
Click to expand...

That is what parole is supposed to be for, but the parole system is so fucked and underfunded that its impossible. Especially on top of prisons not even bothering to have reformation programs to reduce re-offending risk.
 
Why not a monitoring device? We do that with DUII's and the breathing thing to make sure you're not drunk before driving. Driving can help improve their lives, too. Multiple offenders get banned, though. Just like driving, another privilege.
 
pendragon1 said:
or find their next victim...
since when is internet access a right?
Click to expand...
Social media is currently one of the primary forums for speech, so the first amendment does. Besides, if one is trying to pick up kids, would you do it under your real name? My guess is not, but I don't know anyone (AFAIK) that does such things.
 
nilepez said:
Social media is currently one of the primary forums for speech, so the first amendment does. Besides, if one is trying to pick up kids, would you do it under your real name? My guess is not, but I don't know anyone (AFAIK) that does such things.
Click to expand...

facebook and twitter are NOT covered under the first amendment you know private companies and what not.
 
i was not talking about 1a but...
1a gives you guys the right to talk but does not give you the right to a place to talk.
I still don't see how internet access is a right...
 
I support this simply because "sex offender" is used far too much as a catch-all. Two minors have consensual sex? The guy is a "sex offender" and the girl is a statutory rape victim. Two teens in a state that allows them to have sex send each other nudes? They are both pedophile "sex offenders." If the label and registry weren't so horribly abused I'd probably have a different stance. But things as they are, I don't see an issue with allowing them some basics in life.
 
internet access is not a right or a basic life necessity. people did everything without it before the mid 90s they can do it again. yes I agree the "sex offender" is a little too vague, needs a per case as mentioned above.
 
pendragon1 said:
internet access is not a right or a basic life necessity. people did everything without it before the mid 90s they can do it again. yes I agree the "sex offender" is a little too vague, needs a per case as mentioned above.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is a really fucking stupid argument. In case you weren't aware it isn't the 90s anymore, it is 2017. The internet is a basic part of human life these days. Some level of internet access, even if its at a library or some similar place is almost a basic requirement. Even most workforce centers require people to access the internet these days in order to search for jobs or even put up a resume, even if its done at their offices. People without any access to the internet are at a serious disadvantage in modern society. Like it or not our country, and most developed nations, are connected countries with the internet nearly as necessary as electricity. Social media is a bit of a different story, but not the ability to use the internet itself. Unless there is a real, and serious, danger of someone doing something very bad with an internet connection then the courts should never be allowed to revoke a person's ability to get online. The mid-90s was over 20 years, things are not the same now as they were then.
 
lol oh and look up a few post re:
pendragon1 said:
if you need internet, libraries and job centers all have it for free.
Click to expand...
AND everything you are "required" to do online for work centres or ei(unemployment) can actually still be done by phone if you actually look for the phone # or do it in person.
ps: you can live without the internet, try it sometime I have...
 
pendragon1 said:
lol oh and look up a few post re:

AND everything you are "required" to do online for work centres or ei(unemployment) can actually still be done by phone if you actually look for the phone # or do it in person.
ps: you can live without the internet, try it sometime I have...
Click to expand...

In home, sure. But there have been cases where courts have tried to completely ban people from getting on the internet period. That was my point. Sorry if I missed yours.
 
"social media sites that help them improve their lives."

I argue that social media sites have yet to improve anyone's life.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Why not a monitoring device? We do that with DUII's and the breathing thing to make sure you're not drunk before driving. Driving can help improve their lives, too. Multiple offenders get banned, though. Just like driving, another privilege.
Click to expand...

Usually those devices are only used for a limited time frame.

We have a bunch of people who believe the internet should be a utility. So in terms of the internet portion if it was to become a utility it would be like saying you can't have running water or sewer. I know this portion isn't in question for this cases... but nonetheless

In terms of social media...that's a more expensive deal. You have to have monitors be it people or software. All administrative costs per se.

If the person has satisfied their sentence my view is they shouldn't have these lifelong burdens imposed. If they need to monitored and such why are they out of jail/prison in the first place?

The bigger issue is rethinking our dysfunctional justice/penal system as a whole.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
If a criminal does their time, why restrict their rights afterwards as well?
That and sex offender really isn't specific enough. If you urinate in public and get caught, you're a sex offender.
Click to expand...

Thats a good point.

I'm all for child predators losing every right that society offers, but people who get caught up in it for stupid reasons shouldn't lose anything.
 
RaxusCraxurFace said:
Thats a good point.

I'm all for child predators losing every right that society offers, but people who get caught up in it for stupid reasons shouldn't lose anything.
Click to expand...
I think there's a lot of different flavors for child predators.
People that abduct and or abuse children have no place in society. They should be in jail for life mainly because they're a threat to all children.

People that get convicted of statutory rape because she lied about her age and are considered sex offenders for life, i'm not quite sure about. Even in the cases where they knew she was underage but it was consensual is a bit different in my opinion.

Public urination should be just a fine as long as there's no repeating offenses of that nature. Come on, there's no need to shame them for life because they were drunk and had to go/didn't want to pee their pants.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Public urination should be just a fine as long as there's no repeating offenses of that nature. Come on, there's no need to shame them for life because they were drunk and had to go/didn't want to pee their pants.
Click to expand...

Never did understand this one. Only we as a species would regulate and make it a legal offense to pee. Like no you can't use someone as a tree, but if you are using a tree who cares? In most cases it is a ton cleaner than public bathrooms.
 
Darunion said:
Never did understand this one. Only we as a species would regulate and make it a legal offense to pee. Like no you can't use someone as a tree, but if you are using a tree who cares? In most cases it is a ton cleaner than public bathrooms.
Click to expand...

The problem is exposure. We view seeing genitalia as exposure and then it becomes unwanted and offensive.

Reality is you are right... but someone does care and now we don't have a distinction that deals in common sense.
 
Gavv said:
If the person has satisfied their sentence my view is they shouldn't have these lifelong burdens imposed. If they need to monitored and such why are they out of jail/prison in the first place?
Click to expand...

There are too many what if's, and I hate them and use them a lot. There's always the exceptions. Most people, I'd agree with you. There are some that use social media to attract their victims and are multiple offenders. If they are likely to reoffend, why give them the opportunity? It's the same with being allowed within a certain distance from a school or place where children hang out.

Again, it's a what if and a small percentage of the entire group of sex offenders, so it's largely irrelevant. But, that's just an example.
 
pendragon1 said:
lol oh and look up a few post re:

AND everything you are "required" to do online for work centres or ei(unemployment) can actually still be done by phone if you actually look for the phone # or do it in person.
ps: you can live without the internet, try it sometime I have...
Click to expand...

Do you own stock in phone book companies? cuz guess where I search up phone numbers for the past 8 years.
 
SecretStash said:
Do prison inmates now have Constitutional right?
Click to expand...

Actually I think that it was the intention of the founders to define rights as "granted by God", as in "God given rights".

I think the intent was that the Constitution recognized and affirmed these rights, not grant them.

These rights have come to be defined as Natural Rights, rights that every man and woman is due and don't need to be granted by a government. For instance, the government doesn't get to grant you the right to breath air.

Before the US Constitution was drafted and ultimately ratified by the States, there was the Declaration of Independence, which includes that well known phrase;
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Click to expand...
which set the tone for why the United States was justified in defying England and claiming independence.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Gavv, post: 1043074039, member: 128010"...........If the person has satisfied their sentence my view is they shouldn't have these lifelong burdens imposed...............[/QUOTE]

Overall I agree, paid his price, served his time, let it go right.

But we know this doesn't work in all cases because some cases the problem that motivated the behavior is psychological and a stretch in prison isn't a cure.

We have a serious problem in this country when it comes to dealing with people that have mental problems. Instead of dealing with them and helping them, we give them drugs and throw them to the wolves. If their families don't step up and try to keep them safe and out of harms way, they wind up causing or getting involved in situations that draw the cops, the cops will be "triggered" by the person who isn't behaving right, acting rational, responding to commands, etc. And it usually ends badly.
 
lcpiper said:
Overall I agree, paid his price, served his time, let it go right.

But we know this doesn't work in all cases because some cases the problem that motivated the behavior is psychological and a stretch in prison isn't a cure.

We have a serious problem in this country when it comes to dealing with people that have mental problems. Instead of dealing with them and helping them, we give them drugs and throw them to the wolves. If their families don't step up and try to keep them safe and out of harms way, they wind up causing or getting involved in situations that draw the cops, the cops will be "triggered" by the person who isn't behaving right, acting rational, responding to commands, etc. And it usually ends badly.
Click to expand...

...and former criminals can't escape their past. Renters have rights to refuse convicts. Employers too. Coupled with the highest incarceration rate in the world is it any wonder the recitivism rate and homelessness?
 
otherweeb said:
Do you own stock in phone book companies? cuz guess where I search up phone numbers for the past 8 years.
Click to expand...
why does everyone automatically assume shit like that or shout shill all the fucking time?! I still get a phone book delivered to my door every year. just because you've gotten used to everything at your finger tips does not mean the old stuff isn't still there. you just have to actually look for it like we used to do. have people forgotten how we used to do things before 2000? I guess 20 year olds don't really know any different....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top