Quantcast

Facebook Is Still No Country For Sex Offenders, Says Indiana Judge

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
Facebook Is Still No Country For Sex Offenders, Says Indiana Judge
[ Social Media]

“Sex offenders are deplorable and allowing them access to our children via Facebook is criminal.”

How about “it’s a universal human right, protected by the constitution, to be able to access these forms of communication as they amount to free speech.”

Those are the types of statements you’re likely to hear concerning sex offenders and social media. The problem is that it’s much more complicated than those polarizing statements suggest. That’s why states are currently coming to different conclusions surrounding similar laws.

The latest ruling comes from Indiana, where a federal judge has decided that a state ban on convicted sex offenders accessing social media sites like Facebook is lawful. The decision will be appealed by the ACLU, who have been fighting such laws around the country.

Here’s a simple one: Why is banning registered sex offenders from Facebook such a hot topic these days? Do you think that this kind of ban is a lazy way to deal with a tough problem? Let us know in the comments.

The ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed by the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union back in January. In a class-action challenge, the ACLU cited the unlawfulness of an Indiana statue that prohibits registered sex offenders from accessing any social networking site that can also be accessed by minors.

The actual statue reads:

…a person described in subsection who knowingly or intentionally uses a social networking web site; or an instant messaging or chat room program that the offender knows allows a person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age to access or use the web site or program commits a sex offender Internet offense, a Class A misdemeanor.

The ACLU’s problem with that law is that its overbroad and unconstitutional.

“To broadly prohibit such a large group of persons from ever using these modern forms of communication is just something the First Amendment cannot tolerate,” said Ken Falk, ACLU legal director, Indiana chapter.

Their argument states that social media is such a ubiquitous part of everyday life, and that it’s impossible to simply ban an entire segment of the population from using a necessary form of communication.

Judge Tanya Pratt thought otherwise, saying, “the Court readily concedes that social networking is a prominent feature of modern-day society; however, communication does not begin with a ‘Facebook wall post’ and end with a ’140-character Tweet.’”

Indiana is not the only place where these kinds of laws are being battled in the courts. In Nebraska, a similar law banning registered sex offenders from holding social media accounts was axed. And in Louisiana, a sex offender Facebook ban was deemed “unconstitutionally overbroad.”

“Although the act is intended to promote the legitimate and compelling state interest of protecting minors from internet predators, the near total ban on internet access imposed by the act unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life in today’s world,” wrote the Judge in his opinion.

That ruling hasn’t stopped proponents of the ban, who passed a revised version last month. One Louisiana lawmaker, unsure of the constitutionality of blanket bans, has passed a law requiring all registered sex offenders to list their status and crimes on any social network in which they participate.

Should sex offenders be allowed on Facebook (and other social outlets)? It’s obviously a highly contested premise. One side screams something about protecting children – while the other screams something about the first amendment and fairness. Factor in the discrepancies in “sex offender” laws which have people winding up on a registry for public urination, and you’ve got a rather complicated issue.

Plus, Facebook is pretty clear about it from their end:

“Convicted sex offenders are prohibited from using Facebook.”

Is access to Facebook and other forms of social media protected by the First Amendment? Do sex offender laws lack enough uniformity to make it immoral to lump people together in a blanket social media ban? Or is the idea of registered sex offender (no matter the crime) having access to communication channels with young kids so despicable that social media bans are the only way to deal with the issue? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Facebook Is Still No Country For Sex Offenders, Says Indiana Judge
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • melissa llanes

    I love the idea that sex offenders wouldnt be able to access facebook. It is unfortunate that people that shouldnt be there might be there like the public urination case but Im 100% for protecting our children. I, personally, dont care one bit that some child rapist feels like his rights are being violated. What about the child that he (she) violated? I couldnt care less that they paid their debt to society. Im sure the child they harmed is still out there and bares the scars of what they did to them.

  • http://cakeblast.com Larry H

    I am against the blanket ban, first of all, because not all sex offenders are child rapists. There are cases where adults get drunk and sleep with each other and the next morning the woman realizes that she is naked in a man’s bed – no recollection, but claims rape. He is convicted in court, serves 18-months for the crime and after he gets out has to register as a sex offender. This is not hypothetical, I know somebody that this happened to and I don’t know if he date-raped her, but they are/were both in their late-20s.

    Secondly, I think released child-sex offenders should have their Facebook accounts monitored rather than banned (like virtual house-arrest) – and pay for the service (like they do with house-arrest). Those who would re-offend might trip themselves up with their status updates; the outright ban is encouraging them from the get-go to establish an alias and hook up to a VPN.

  • Shelly Stow

    This ban has been successfully challenged in other states because it encompasses a large group of people based on their inclusion in the group rather than what any of them have done as individuals. It is, for that reason, unconstitutional and will eventually not stand.
    For those who think it is fair, it would be like requiring everyone who ever had a traffic citation to pay into a fund for the families of people killed by drunk drivers because some of those citations were to people who had killed someone driving drunk. Your citation may have been for going five miles over the speed limit, but it is still a citation. Therefore, you are in the group of people receiving citations and will all be treated the same.

  • Confused

    I personally love idiots. I only wish they could be educated on the truth of sex offenders. As one has already posted, public urination is considered a sex offense, then again, so is streaking, stalking (for any reason), a 16 yo male (or female) sending his (her) naked photo via text to their girlfriend or boyfriend of the same age (can be a hit for both of them). The list goes on and on.

    However, the United States Department of Justice released a study for 2002 showing that the recidivism rate for sex offenders was 5.3% – A far cry from the staggering re-offending rates for drugs, robbery or many other major felony charges.

    That being said. You should be more worried about those who are not registered offenders than those people who are listed in your local vigilante hit list (the sex offender registry).

    What boggles my mind, is that people like Melissa are 100% for protecting our children and yet she offers no protection to them at all beyond a false sense of security with the ostracization of registered offenders. Antics such as this make me believe that the desire for the ban is purely vengeance driven. If we are truly seeking protection for the children, we should consider removing the children from the social sites, protecting them from the other 90-odd% of offenses that are first-time cases.

    As to Facebook’s standpoint on sex offenders (“Convicted sex offenders are prohibited from using Facebook.”) I’ve no issue with this at all. The service is their own to dictate how they will. I do however wonder the legalities of every single business who offers perks to those who “like” them.

    By offering perks only to those people who have the ability to “like” any given business, these same businesses are overlooking a select group of people, opening one hell of a field day in the court systems for discrimination charges.

  • davidwr

    This is Facebook we are talking about, not Yahooligans.

    The only way it’s right to ban sex offenders from all of Facebook and similar sites is to turn those sites into primarily-children’s areas.

    As long as groups of adults, businesses, and especially governments use these sites to converse with a primarily-adult customer base, then kicking out sex offenders because some aspects of Facebook are primarily used by kids and teens is senseless. Not only is it senseless, but in the case of governments who use Facebook, it opens them up to lawsuits of denying the sex offender equal access to government services.

    It would be far, far better for Facebook and similar sites to add “kid” and “under-18 adolescent” areas where ONLY people reasonably close in age, their parents, and vetted adults with a specific need to be there could participate. In the case of kids and very young adolescents all transactions should be logged and made available to parents for later review. You’d still have to deal with the parent who is a registered sex offender, but that’s the same problem schools, Little Leagues, and others have to deal with already.

  • http://NA Steve

    The solution lies not in limiting even more freedom of the people, but in parents educating their children, truthfully and responsibly. Better supervision would be advisable also.

    Once government, local or federal, starts controlling or internet choices, there will be no limit to what they will do. The freedom of many shall be limited to what some “official” had decided is “proper” for us.

    Government should stay within their bounds and let what should be parental control be controlled by parents.

  • http://www.hobotraveler.com/blogger.html Andy Lee Graham

    I am Andy Lee Graham, founder of HoboTraveler.com, with 12 years of history on the net. We started a travel community, and we are trying our best to encourage real people to admit who they are, and to limit contact between dodgy members.

    This is going to cost of 1000′s of dollars and make growth of our travecommunityty slow.

    But, we believe that Facebook is unethical, it make privacy setminimumimun, and does explainplan any risk.

    The Sex Offenders will game Facebook.com, so the law is almost worthless. They will sign up with an alias.

    But, I hope Facebook is sued for billions of dollars promptly.

    We at HoboTraveler.com are doing things like.
    - Tagging key dodgy words, and telling readers to beware.
    - Vetting members, and trying to warn when the person is a question mark.

    etc.

    We can create all type of filters to spot bad practices, and we are small.

    The Facebook is criminally negligeabilityey have the ablity to stop exposing information that makes identity theft easy, but they do. They assume they are smart, and the reader is dumb, that is their business model. It is sad, I do not want my Mother, Father, Friends and readers to know what is possible to do with coding. I do not need told to protect people. Greed is Facebook, and it is criminal, and if I has an extra one million around, I would sue Facebook to protect the public.

    The government of the USA needs to stop this monopoly, few other lawyers have the money to stop them. And, Indiana needs to learn, there is always a way to game a system on the Internet. And, the coder can stop it, and the do not. The excuse is, they should be smarter, and they are liable for their actions. Statutory rape is what is happensuperior use their superiour knowledge to allow crap to happen.

    If I had a daughter or son, I would keep them off of Facebook it is incredibly dangerous. I had to unfriend my Mom, she keep talking about midentityexposing me to idenity theft. I want to stop using Facebook, but it is the only way to send a message to my Nephews and Nieces that work.
    Sad world, when people make money that depends on readers being stupid.
    Thanks
    Andy Lee Graham, perpetual tracountries14 year and 90 couuntries.

  • davey wavey

    the simple solution is, if you fiddle with a kid you should be shot dead!! easy

  • http://www.jkershaw.info James Kershaw

    Let us compare the damage done by the sum total of all these “sex offenders” to the consequences of lost homework, dropping out of school, disinterest in creative pursuits, and failure to secure a career path. If you could draw a line between this and society’s preocupation with FB would it not be better to ban FB in favor of human relations? As a frivolous time waster I really don’t believe FB will have any meaningful long term significance to this generation.

  • http://www.errolruppconsulting.com Errol Rupp

    Since technology is advancing faster than the laws to cover new technology it is your moral responsibility to protect and serve your client base. Yes there is scum out there that is not a ” registered sex offender” but monitoring public sites like this is a safety issue.

  • http://www.onlinesuccesspath.com Sharon Brown

    Everyone has a valuable opinion that should be heard. My opinion is that registered sex offenders SHOULD be banned from Facebook. Because technically, most are lucky to be on probation instead of serving their time behind bars.

    I don’t think it’s a matter of taking any rights away from them. Instead, they have been given the right to not be behind bars where some of them really belong. I won’t get into the debate of who deserves what penalty for which specific sex offense here, but the bottom line is that they don’t need to be rewarded or given the opportunity to do additional harm than what they’ve already done. Even if it’s a 22 year old person who thinks he (or she) has consent to have sex with a 16 year old, that adult should have been thinking twice about what’s right and wrong — and what’s legal and what’s not.

    I’m all for protecting our children and NOT rewarding those who abuse our children. My thought is – why give the offender a chance to do it again? Online activities just make it too easy for them to also get young teens to send pics of themselves and/or engage in online “virtual sex” activities.

    I’m all for Facebook having this rule in place to ban the sex offenders.

    It’s not lazy – perhaps what could be deemed lazy is being too lax with those offenders and not putting them behind bars to serve their time. That is what I deem to be lazy. These offenders are lucky not to be serving time in the first place – or serving less time than what they might have if the “lazy” approach wasn’t being take with them on a legal level.

    • Karen

      I don’t believe I could have said it any better. I live in a community of 30 registered sex offenders, I am very grateful my 3 children are grownup however I now have a granddaughter that I must now worry about. Regardless of the crime I believe people can change. However its been proven too many times that sex offenders fall back to their crime as soon as they get out or within a years time. Here’s to another 18 years of fear and stress.

  • http://www.infowars.com Banatu

    Everything about this proposed ‘ban’ of sex offenders is crap.

    The title of ‘sex offender’ is crap, as it includes a great many things that are neither sexual nor ‘offensive’ in the way it implies.

    The continued punishment of ‘sex offenders’ is crap, including labeling and restricting them in any way. This is continuing punishment after the time has been served. If they’re still so dangerous they must be restricted and labeled and so forth, why the hell are they let out of prison?

    Barring someone from using the internet or such a mainstream site as Facebook is crap. I utterly despise Facebook and social media of all kinds, yet I am forced to use it occasionally in my job. That puts them at a very serious disadvantage in a situation where they’re already unfairly disadvantaged, as per above. It is little wonder so many people resort to crime.

    Better to ban Facebook, if you ask me.

    It is the job of the police to respond to crime, the court to determine guilt or innocence and decide punishment. It is the job of the parents to protect their children and teach children to protect themselves. If you think yet another pointless law is going to make Facebook or any website or any aspect of life any safer, you are either very naive or very stupid. Sorry to be so blunt, but I am very serious.

  • ron brown

    Banning FaceBook or any of its users is not the answer to the problem.As in all crimes the punishment never fits the crime.We have laws that would make the penalties much tougher which in turn would be a strong deterrent but these laws are never enforced to their full potential.Also the prisons are too comfortable and are an attraction for the criminals.The answer is to toughen up the sentencing and just give the bare essentials in the prisons and I am sure we will see a noticeable difference in the number of offenders.After all it isnt rocket science and doesnt require lenghty costly research just listen to common sense from the common people

  • Lance Dzintars

    A tough spot, how does a country based on fairness, equality and a Constitution which provides freedom of speech, fairness in justice and a road map for punishment but not creating extremes hardships? How do we balance the positions? When the law was created we were manipulated to believe that “Now-we were all safe”, that the “bad” people would go away, and we as a society did not have to actually deal with the real problems or address the real difficult questions. We were lead to believe that all these “Sex Offenders” were awful people who raped children and were torturing souls. But we failed to question our elected officials on who and what actually made a dangerous situation and now we have deeper problems.

    Did the law actually do anything to help? Some of these “Offenders” ran away and hid, not registering and no one knows where or who they are, others were kicked out of jobs, not employed and removed from a normal social interaction based on perceptions, not facts. Some were 17 years old who were confused and seriously screwed up as Kids themselves, yet convicted as adults. These same kids, 20 years after their only mistake can’t get jobs, are denied loans to create businesses, and denied educational opportunities, even though they have never been in trouble in twenty years. Did our Precious deceiving law really mean to Criminalize a mans urination on the side of the road (Disgusting-Yes) but not a sex offender. Did we step over board when we convicted kids for discovering the natural course of sex with their girlfriends and boyfriends as ALL teenagers do at some point in time (it called growing up). At what point do we STOP and realize we are running away from our problems by creating law after law which does nothing to prevent crimes. Education, Mentoring, Community and a sense of social connections prevent crime (Proven Facts! So how does keeping a “Sex Offender” from access too community prevent crime?

    What about that child that hurt someone when they were a juvenile, and was punished and worked hard to fix their mistakes afterwards. What do we do with the Juvenile after they get out of jail, go through probation, complete counseling, and they achieve college educations, work everyday, pay taxes and raise families and create businesses. Did you know Federal Laws prevent most loans through communities loan programs to be provided to those people who were ever convicted of hurting a minor? How does that help? How does the business owner compete in business if they can’t use Social Media as any other business owner would. How does the “sex offender” gain jobs, or learn of potential jobs when Social Media has been used now to advertise jobs, and in some cases used as a process of interviewing?

    If you really believe everyone convicted and placed on Megan Law (Sex Offenders Law)really does need to be there and that it helps safety-Your Delusional! Criminals do not always remain Criminals, Some Grow, Learn, and Wish and Pray they could make the mistake be fixed, Some Criminals Cry knowing they hurt someone once, Some Ex-Criminals only want to be part of society and to work towards keeping others from making those same mistakes. “Once a criminal-always a criminal” IS FALSE!

    If this law stays in place, then every legal misstep, law breaking act needs to be published and the person needs to be prevented from being able to access those same “possible” potential places, sites, acts, people and community events. If you read all this then, here is the last thing I want to place in your head for a thought, I was 17 in 1992, convicted of a felony assault charge while in High school, since that time I have earned 3 degrees, held management jobs, wrote a book, own homes, pay taxes, lost loved ones, and opened a business. Even though I have never been in trouble since my first and only arrest, I am still discriminated against for Jobs, Loans, and Equality and have been living in pretty much financial Hell because of my past at age 17 (as a Juvenile), at what point do we accept that some people make some really bad mistakes in life, but we need to help those people come “back into the fold”? My Book is “Ocirrus” published on Lulu.com and is on the Nook at B&N. Read it if you really want to be Educated!

    • Baron de Pinto

      Bravo Sir for your excellent article. I am in full admiration of your success and how you have reached out to overcome your past difficulties.

      You Sir are a shining example of reform, regret and repentence. I used repentence advisedly. The word does not just mean sorry, it is much more meaningful that that. Its meaning is in reality the turning round and walking away from your past criminal behaviour.

      This clearly is seen to the case with you Sir. Therefore you have my full admiration of someone who fully turned his life around and is now a benefactor to society in terms of your business sense,advice and character.

      There is a problem with society at large which is reprehensible. This is the inability to forgive. If there were more forgiveness the world would be a better place as mistakes leading to recidivistic criminal behaviour will go down.

      Finally in conclusion I have to quote from a study on poverty entitled : Why Are So Many Americans in Prison? : Authored by Steven Raphel of UC Berkley and Michael A Stoll of UCLA Supported by the Russell Sage Foundation.
      Abstract
      The United States currently incarcerates its residents at a rate that is greater than every other country in the world. Aggregating the state and federal prison populations as well as inmates in local jails, there were 737 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents in 2005 (International Centre for Prison Studies 2007). This compares with a world average of 166 per 100,000 and an average among European Community member states of 135. Of the approximately 2.1 million U.S. residents incarcerated in 2005, roughly 65 percent were inmates in state and federal prisons while the remaining 35 percent resided in local jails.

      Moreover, current U.S. incarceration rates are unusually high relative to historical figures for the U.S. itself. For the fifty-year period spanning the 1920s through the mid-1970s, the number of state and federal prisoners per 100,000 varied within a 10- to 20-unit band around a rate of approximately 110. Beginning in the mid-1970s, however, state prison populations grew at an unprecedented rate, nearly quadrupling between the mid-1970s and the present. Concurrently, the rate of incarceration in local jails more than tripled.

      The main problem as I can see is that there are hundreds of laws that millions of the population never understand let alone know about. This is the begining of the communist state. All power is given to the state,as its society abrogates itself from governing itself. Therefore the socially corrupt, morally bankrupt elite take it upon themselves to make laws almost impossible to keep. They infact are the real seemingly untouchable criminals.

  • http://www.captaincyberzone.com Cap’n Cyberzone

    Sanity dictates that you do not give social access to mentally defective, anti-social evil doers!
    Those individuals who act-out sexual deviancy on unwilling, un-consenting, mentally immature and/or the under-aged (children, which in the U.S. is now to the age of 26 years old) are perverted sociopaths whose perverted actions most likely can be attributed to a brain defect (physical, chemical or neurological). These people need to be removed from the greater society and treated, if and when possible, for their anti-social, criminal and destructive behavior. If their defect can not be addressed and corrected then they need to be permanently removed or quarantined and monitored 24/7.
    India is a sovereign nation, meaning that it’s peoples have the worldly “universal right” to dictate their rules and laws.
    Facebook is not a [world] “universal human right” [for all peoples], especially the perverts using it to commit crimes against society.

  • http://plutocrazy.info Len

    Not really an easy question to answer… On the one hand any nation with a constitution assuring citizens equal rights and freedoms legally must permit all citizens access to the internet or any other form of communication. However, to allow sexual predators unfettered access to potential victims is deplorable. The only solution is to pass an amendment to all constitutions that forbid convicted sexual predators the legal right to use communication tools that enable them to source victims… or enact laws that make sexual assault an act punishable by live imprisonment or death. Personally, I’d vote for the latter as the solution because police monitoring of persons convicted of rape and child molestation has been less than reassuring it would work if made mandatory.

  • http://sites.google.com/site/justsayingmypiece/ Charlie

    “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. I’m just sayin’…

  • tammiemarie

    Although I disagree with many forms of social media, I must say that many convicted sex offenders are troubled, but what about the ones that were niave? Like guys who have sex with their girlfriends until their parents find out and the next thing you know is that. Boy is now a convicted sex offender for life. What about the girls who lie to get their way to get even with her parents and the boyfriend gets screwed?

    Each individual case should be reviewed. Those with multiple convictions should be banned. Those who had one conviction should be reviewed and their convictions overturned. In most cases they are non hireable, can’t get into college, can’t have a family and are sentenced to life. Most live on the streets and their only connection to friends and family out of the area is through socoal networks through their local library’s.

    You should not condemn someone because you don’t know the logistics of their. Conviction.

    Not all sex offenders are bad amd looking for their next victim. If you stress over these people in your neighborhood you have some serious issues. Most never reoffend because they didn’t do anything to begin with.

  • madchook

    Access to social media such as Facebook and many of the bonuses of the modern Western world isn’t a basic human right; it’s a privilege. Freedom of speech is a basic human right, but that doesn’t mean unlimited free speech, everywhere, all the time. There are always places/situations in life where there are spoken/written and unspoken/unwritten contracts about what we can/can’t or should/shouldn’t say. It’s not appropriate to stride into a kindergarten or kids’ playground and start swearing and ranting. It’s not appropriate anywhere that our freedom to act/speak transgresses on other people’s freedom to be safe.
    In places where the public choose to congregate (including social media), partly BECAUSE they perceive that there are some regulations governing their safety there, it is absolutely appropriate to take reasonable measures to uphold that safety. Facebook is also fundamentally a business, not the same as a public place like a town square, and a perceived lack of safety can adversely affect its continued success, so it’s within the rights of the owner/management to determine what the rules are for its use – including the exclusion of anyone who could adversely affect their business. What if a high-profile sex-offender case that was inadvertently facilitated by Facebook actually caused its demise? No Facebook for anyone. Using Facebook is a privilege, not a right. I believe that any lawbreakers, having CHOSEN to break certain laws and rob other people of theirs (and we are and must be responsible for our choices in life*), give up certain rights of their in doing so and cannot expect to re-enter society and have unlimited freedoms or be regarded in the same way again. I believe the burden of proof of their social safety is theirs: offenders need to prove that they are safe to participate in fora such as Facebook. Tracking of their behaviour (by identification or surveillance of their communications) is appropriate). Facebook monitors other communications and bans transgressors.
    I believe more than anything,while all the debates continue, it’s inappropriate to do NOTHING. If we err, let’s err on the side of caution and do what we can to keep society and its networks as safe as we can.
    (Yes, law-breakers do make choices, even where there are extenuating circumstances – that’s not just a white middle-class opinion. I am the child of a impoverished law-breaker whose mental illness fuelled his violence. Even when he was really ill, I watched him make conscious CHOICES about his behaviour that destroyed peoples’ lives. When I became ill with the same problem, I chose not to copy his behaviours or commit offences).

  • Underdog helper

    Does anyone find this interesting- why doesn’t Facebook just invent a kids(Facebook) book? Why all the efforts to shed light on a population of men and women who are on the sex offenders registry already. It’s public knowledge anyhow. I personally do not see the point of all the bitching and moaning over men and women on the sex offender list being on Facebook. Do people realize sex offenses are now more than rapist? The sex offender registry is full of loop holes- individuals corralled onto the list for anything these days- you can be placed on the list for public urination to alleged date rape to someone saying you exposed yourself to them. Clearly whoever thought up the sex offenders registry had good intentions but the list is too generalized. It basically groups anyone who has had blue shoes on at a point in time. First get the sex offenders registry cleaned up and reorganized stating facts about the men and women. Prohibit the list to be viewed by the general public outside of employers and of course law enforcement. Then create a kid friendly place on the Internet. A whole kid portal and shut that portal down in a decent nightly hour. Why do kids under 18 have 24 hr access to the Internet anyway? Oh and facebook should restrict anyone under 18 anyway. What do kids need to be so social for anyway? They get enough socializing in school when the should be learning( and they are hardly learning). Adults should socialiZe with adults. It is a freedom still in place- freedom of speech. I would like to think I as an adult can make my own mind up on who to make conversation with or who I choose not to “friend”. Let us be honest, most of us have “friends” on Facebook we haven’t seen in awhile,have never met and may not even care to. We all just use Facebook to feed our ego. After all Facebook started from the idea to rate people’s physical selves. You don’t see the creator of fb so concerned about sex offenders or not sex offenders. He is just counting his money and enjoying his creation. Come on people stop judging put down your pitch forks and stop the fires. Insist Facebook create a “kidsbook” and let’s be done with this over talked about topic.

  • Martin Kowalski

    The ACLU is a corrupt anti-American Leftist-Liberal group

  • C Ruck

    What happened to a criminal loosing his rights because of his personal neglect to the safety of our society?

  • Biggup Yaself

    How about this: We make it simple, you choose to molest children, you lose your constitutional right to access these forms of communication. We make it part of the penalty. Convicted felons are not allowed to own a gun, ever, regardless of circumstances surrounding case AND even if it was not a violent crime – so why should it be any different for these low life parasites who prey kids?

  • james truett

    I believe that people change. In fact the Bible gives a person about 41 and a half years to learn to walk in “The Way” of Christ Jesus. It takes time to change and grow and too many idiots think that once a sex offender always a sex offender but that’s not true. many answers were suggested…I suggest that face book do what they do and not restrict the site cause change is possible even with the worst offenders. And if they don’t change they will end up paying the price. And all the hate mongers can go to hell.

  • http://whiteeagleaerie.com/ Nathan P.

    Facebook has clearly stated their position – they don’t want convicted sex offenders on the site. A more simple way to do this instead of states putting the onus on the offenders, is to simply ask the offenders for their email address as well as their physical address, then send the info to Facebook so they can ban the individual. Simple, easy, and effective.

    It would be hard to argue against this, because Facebook makes the rules by which people agree to follow when the join.

  • jeff nowlin

    This is just another step being taken to make a lower class citizen. It was done to the African Americans,the Indians, and now to sex offenders. They have already pushed them into bubble areas to live with residency laws(sounds like the Nazi treatment of Jews), have endangered their lives and the lives of their family members by giving every overly judgmental hillbilly with a gun access to their adresses, endangered the children of those deemed fit to still reside with their children by essentially forcing them to live in whatever area they can find that doesn’t have residency restrictions thereby exposing more children to any other SO’s that happen to also, by necessity, live in the same area. Some even have chosen to go underground instead of dealing with all the laws and restrictions and now we have no clue where they are. Others still have been made homeless and jobless because they can’t find anywhere to live and nobody will hire them. Not all are monsters…….some are…..maybe 10%. The rest are mostly just screw ups and bad raps. Now with this, it is just a stepping stone to completely banning SO’s from the internet all together. It’s a hush method because since most SO’s can’t go to parks or attend public funtions in order to state their cases and argue the rights and wrongs of the process, they use the internet to get the word out to the world. They don’t want SO’s organized, they have made too large a group and are afraid that once not just SO’s but their families and friends come together as one to fight the unconstitutional treatment, they will lose. Think about it…….if sex offenders, their families, and friends of said offenders were to ever come together and march on Washington it would dwarf the “Million Man March”. Get that group together and let the lawmakers see the potential votes in the crowd and I promise you will start seeing a different way of thinking.

  • surething

    Just my .02 on this. Facebook is supposed to be “family and friends”. Sex offenders don’t have family and friends, do they?
    Facebook’s policy is absurd. Joey the convicted murderer can have his FB, but not Fred who downloaded some child porn for being stupid and lacking common sense. Con artists, stalkers, bullies, extortionists, identity thieves, kidnappers, etc. can have FB because they are “safer” than sex offenders, right?

    All this sex offender witch hunt is crap. One of my relatives is a SO and his life and that of his family is miserable. He did his time and now is doing a life sentence of discrimination, with a growing group of politically correct people adding more and more restrictions.

    Let’s vote for new laws: mandatory separation of public bathrooms, men, women, boys and girls. That way Joe Sr. won’t go to prison because little Johnnie saw him pee.

    I am a parent as well, protection begins AT HOME. If we don’t look after our children then we’re not better than those predators.

    The posting talking about SO coming together is right, they are a few million people affected by this, and it would be interesting to see what would happen if they got organized.

    Last, but definitely not least, those who keep singing the song “re-incidence”, get your figures straight. Go and do your own research on recividism among sex offenders. All the info you need is public record, ALL OF IT. You will be surprised to find out that many other crimes have much higher rates of recividism, including some that kill kids and families (DUI). Oh but no one knows that Tom, the next door guy, has had 3 DUI’s and now he’s taking your son to the movies with his kids.

    Get real. You people make me sick.