Court rules sex offender Facebook ban unconstitutional
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - An Indiana law that bans registered sex offenders from accessing Facebook and other social networking sites that can be accessed by children is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Chicago overturned a federal judge's decision upholding the law, saying the "blanket ban" was too broad and didn't protect children.
"It broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather than specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors," the judges said in a 20-page decision.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled in June that the state has a strong interest in protecting children and found that social networking had created a "virtual playground for sexual predators to lurk." She noted that the Internet remains open to those who have been convicted of sex offenses.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the class-action suit on behalf of a man who served three years for child exploitation and other sex offenders who are restricted by the ban even though they are no longer on probation.
Federal judges have barred similar laws in Nebraska and Louisiana.
Officials at the ACLU and the Indiana attorney general's office said they hadn't yet reviewed the ruling and had no immediate comment.
The 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Chicago overturned a federal judge's decision upholding the law, saying the "blanket ban" was too broad and didn't protect children.
"It broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather than specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors," the judges said in a 20-page decision.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled in June that the state has a strong interest in protecting children and found that social networking had created a "virtual playground for sexual predators to lurk." She noted that the Internet remains open to those who have been convicted of sex offenses.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the class-action suit on behalf of a man who served three years for child exploitation and other sex offenders who are restricted by the ban even though they are no longer on probation.
Federal judges have barred similar laws in Nebraska and Louisiana.
Officials at the ACLU and the Indiana attorney general's office said they hadn't yet reviewed the ruling and had no immediate comment.
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the class-action suit on behalf of a man who served three years for child exploitation and other sex offenders who are restricted by the ban even though they are no longer on probation."
Â
So glad the ACLU is here to protect -indecent- LIBERTIES!
Â
ACLU cares about this kind of stuff, but is silent when the government wants to disarm law-abiding citizens. Go figure.
Â
@newspuppy No one has been disarmed. The has to happen before the ACLU can act. Good try!
By the way - many of the things that can land you on the list today are things that the Framers of the constitution would find absolutely insane that we are punishing people for life (taking a whiz in the woods??) - in fact, punishing someone for life is something revolutions are made of! but oh yeah - for a revolution you have to have the support of your fellow citizens and until this touches your life (and if left to go on it will because the numbers are growing in leaps and bounds and the laws are become more far reaching) you will not understand - when someone you love ends up in this situation I hope you think back to these posts
The problem here is that the public is grossly uninformed about what a sex offender is (in todayâs society) - very few and yes I mean VERY few people on the sex offender registry are actually stranger molesters - 2% maybe out of over 800 thousand in the USA (on the registry) most people on the registry are not harmful to anyone let alone children. Most children that are molested are victimized by a family friend or member. The majority of people on the list are young men who made a really dumb choice, i do not know about the legal age of consent in WA but in many states it is 18. Therefore when a teenage boy looks for porn of teenage girls he is now a sex offender. There are numerous other crimes that can land you on the list (many that you would never think) and in many states it is for life! Also, those of you that are screaming they cannot be cured and they will reoffend make yourselves sound stupid! You are repeating things you have "heard" whether on the media or social circles and your information is outdated and not supported by evidence. First of all - the majority of people on the sex offender list are not pedophiles and do not need a cure of any kind. They are not going to reoffend.  You can read many reports by experts that will tell you this.
Â
So I could go on and on - but the question was raised why would a sex offender want or need to be on the social media? The simple answer is because they are a person??? What person in their right mind would actually think that a sex offender wakes up in the morning and is all consumed with finding a child to harm???? Please ... seriously??  I am sure there are some really bad guys out there that are sick - just like mass murders and serial killers but believe me they are extremely rare. ) Please folks educate yourselves and stop buying into the media hype! There are over 800 thousand people on the registry - 800 thousand! Do you really think they are all Chester the molester????? Many of them never touched a child in any way â do you see what I am saying â never touched a child!
Â
Most sex offenders are good people that made a stupid choice (how about streaking or mooning - or I have one how about skinny dipping?) It is now indecent exposure in many states and you could be on the sex offender list FOR LIFE! These folks are not after your children they are after the same social connection with friends (yes they do have them) and family that most people want.
Yup, one of the heavier sides of First Amendment protections. Â If you don't like it, amend the Amendment. Â Otherwise, find reasonable, factually correct ways to stop child molestation, starting right at home.
Ah yes, once again the safety of decent folk comes in second to those who victimize people. Pathetic and wrong.Â
I've never been on Facebook, Twitter or any of the 'social butterfly' type websites... AND I NEVER WILL.
You know the motto, "To each his own".
Â
I've read too many of stories about identity theft from those sites as well as people being duped or even robbed. If one wants to maintain any privacy, it appears they have to obsess over their personal settings or worry about the company changing the terms of use agreement, etc. WHO NEEDS THAT HASSLE?
Â
My age must be showing, because to me, being 'social' is NOT sitting behind a computer, for hours on end. That does not seem healthy (to me), it seems more like isolation (unless you are handicapped and cannot get out).
Â
I can communicate DIRECTLY with friends & family via email or... get this... IN PERSON!!  :)
Â
Remember that old experiment with a frog in warm water slowly being brought to a boil? The frog did not notice anything wrong.  I feel it's the same thing on these social sites, most people have no clue how many things they are giving up.
Â
JUST ONE HUMBLE ---> OPINION <---
Â
Â
 @K. Coleman It''s really not a lot different than spending the day commenting on articles posted on KOMO News. It's certainly not scary, and if you use a little bit of common sense it's not dangerous. I set my security settings and don't stess over it. It's a great way to keep in touch with family and friends that you care about but for one reason or another, you don't get to see very often. I enjoy the family photos and keeping up with the rest of my family. I have even been able to locate people I went to school with many years ago. For a lot of people, it's just fear of the unknown but you know what they say; to each his own.
Parents should be parents on who your kids are talking to online and offline - they can hate you for being nosy but at least they will not say you do not care about them! ... Honestly - you can trust your child to a point but as long as you keep an active dialog with them and ensure they understand it is not because of 'X' but because of 'Y' ' and when you say you can tell me anything that is going on and I will not judge you (you have to MEAN this and make sure you don't if this is to work) - yes it is possible to do this through good parenting without being seen as overbearing, controlling and unwilling to let them have space' as long as they understand their 'space' has limits and for good a reason... best and only thing you should do in regard to facebook or any social page is at least make sure their profiles are extremely private and cannot be searched out by random people they can add friends and avoid bullying by some of these other sick children and other bad elements if who can see, post things on their walls, and message them is closed off properly - you should not necessarily be reading everything they say online as much as simply keeping tabs that their security settings remain locked down until they get wiser with age to handle that themselves... this you can keep tabs on by simply checking in on them by random searches for them.
Â
The world has some sick people in it and bad things happen despite parents best efforts and their is nothing we as parents can do to prevent everything. All you can do is your best to prepare your child to be observant and cautious on the nets - if you are not willing to give this kind of commitment to a child you have no business being a parent as it is a LIFETIME Commitment not something you simply walk away from!
Â
Facebook security settings in this case is not a replacement for being a parent either!
 facebook needs to have warning text on top of the page for all registered sex offenders, just like on twitter they have blue check marks for all verified users
I think it is time to add an amendment that will deny all freedoms afforded society be strip from sex offenders. Mostly target sex offenders of kids.
 @snoopy84 What? Did you say *ALL* freedoms... like, "the right to *LIFE*, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Just take em all out behind a shed and pop a bullet in the back of their head eh? What if they served their time and are no longer a threat to anyone? That may sound good to some people, but a slippery slope, who's next, anyone but THEM?  Â
Â
I truly envy those who have NEVER done anything in their life (that they are ashamed of). It must make it so much easier to judge everyone else. I just wonder, *IF* they have done *SOMETHING* for which they are ashamed, how they would like to have their nose rubbed in it for the rest of their life?
@K. Coleman One more thought. I have done things I'm not proud about, but child sex offenders are in class of thier own. Many will admit they will reoffend and have.
Â
It is your right to want these people to have a second chance, so pick your victim that they will use to throw away that second chance.
Â
@K. Coleman @snoopy84 You sure are putting up a heavy defense of child sex molesters, why is that?
 @K. Coleman A child sex offender can NOT be rehabilitated and should be shot immediately upon conviction. Sexually offending a child is not a one time offense for any of these pedophiles because if given the chance they will offend again.
 @snoopy84 I've heard a lot of vitriol in my life like... "Gay people should be killed because the Bible say's, '.. thou shalt suffer a homosexual to live' ". Some people of another faith want to kill those that have 'converted'. Others want to kill their children in a twisted 'honor killing' because they married someone of another faith and dis-honored THEM somehow. My ex-wife once said, "All Republicans should be taken out and shot. I've heard other people say Atheists should be killed (me). People have been burned because they were called, 'witches'.
Â
Some people BELIEVE that anyone that does not think, look, act or believe like them are not worthy of life. I disagree.
Â
My problem arises when A WHOLE CLASS OF PEOPLE are stereo-typed and are judged as 'unclean' or modern-day witches, worthy of being executed. Someone out there somewhere, will probably think that YOU the person who is reading this now should be murdered for any number of reasons.
Â
Where do the judgmental draw the line on who is killed next?
@K. Coleman @snoopy84 Sorry, I don't hold child rapist to a standard above a dirtworm. If you think they should have the right be returned to society to reoffend at the expense of another innocent child-then who do you sacrifice to have the dirtfeeder put back in a cell for life?
A = All C = Criminals L = Love U = Us
 @The WA Mama The ACLU defends the US Constitution. The ACLU is not the problem, it is the those who want to pick and choose who has constitutional rights.Also, most of the time they base their decisions on who gets the rights on the bible.
The ACLU's sole mission is to protect individuals' Constitutional rights from being taken by the tyranny of the masses.Â
Â
So of course, you already have the ignorant mouth breathers calling it a communist organization. Right, because that makes sense... Well it does make sense in their little heads....
An Indiana law that bans registered sex offenders from accessing Facebook and other social networking sites that can be accessed by children is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
Â
But those sex offender using Facebook to lure children and "get off" on talking to children is Constitutional?????
Were suppose to be protecting our children in any way shape or form , constitutional or not.Â
This is BS as far as I'm concerned.
Â
So is a Seat belt unconstitutional because I don't want to wear one and I'm forced to do so anyway??? Â
 @Seahawker "Were suppose to be protecting our children in any way shape or form , constitutional or not." -- As a parent, yes. As a nation of laws, no.
Â
So is a Seat belt unconstitutional because I don't want to wear one and I'm forced to do so anyway???  -- No, wearing a seat belt while using your driving privileges is not protected by the constitution. Saying what you want (freedom of speach) is protected (with few exceptions).
Â
BUT, just because it is unconstitutional for there to be a law against it, I do not believe (I could be wrong here) that it would be illegal for facebook to ban registered sex offenders.Â
I'm conflicted about this; on the one hand, someone who actually did commit sexual offenses against children should be locked away and forgotten about. On the other, becoming a "sex offender", like becoming a "DV offender" or "rapist" is far too easy based on hearsay. False accusations are rampant in the courts on these kinds of charges, many times from vengeful ex-partners who use the courts predilection towards "safety" rather than protecting the accused's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, to get vengeance against a perceived wrong. Beyond that, there are too many stories of courts conducting a travesty of justice and convicting the innocent on many different charges to be behind removing someone's ability to communicate for life, and like it or not, Facebook is now a major tool for communication in our world.Â
Â
If our courts were interested in true justice, and protecting the innocent from malicious prosecution, perhaps I would feel differently. But that's not the case; courts are money making enterprises for the state, and as such, I am against any draconian law that removes someone's rights for life, when we can't be sure that the crime they are charged with was actually committed. When the courts stop placing 18 yr old men on sex offender registries because they had sex with a consenting 17 yr old woman, when judges and juries stop making decisions on another person's innocence based on emotion instead of facts, then maybe I will feel differently. But since Blackstone's formulation has gone by the wayside in our court system, I have to side with the accused and believe they are innocent until it is actually proven that they are guilty by the facts of the case, and not hyped up public emotion.
 @dg54321 Well, today is your lucky day! The courts in Washington State do not place 18 year old men on sex offender registries for having sex with a consenting 17 year old. The age of consent in Washington is 16, as long as the older person is not in a position of authority over the younger one. Read on:
Â
Under Washington State law, a 16-year-old is legally capable of consenting to having sexual contact.
There are some exceptions. A person could be guilty of indecent liberties if someone with supervisory authority causes another to have sexual contact. The third-degree child molestation law â the charge that applies for sexual contact with teens 14 up to age 16 â applies to perpetrators at least four years older than the victim.
@dg54321 "Â When the courts stop placing 18 yr old men on sex offender registries because they had sex with a consenting 17 yr old woman, when judges and juries stop making decisions on another person's innocence based on emotion instead of facts,"
Well said.Â
I don't agree the state is making money, I think we are spending to on cases like the one you mention and it is the lawyers making the money.
Your comment on those who assult children I also agree.
Your comment below on parent supervision, again well said!
One last note: It really comes down to this: if you want your children to be safe from predators or ANY kind, there is ONE solution. Supervise your children, be involved in their lives; do NOT just let them get on the Internet and be on their own. If parents did their jobs correctly, there would be very little prey for the real predators to get hold of. And that's an absolute fact.
I'm so sick of coddling sick people like this....they don't have any reason to be on a social website except to further their addictions....But, like a felon shouldn't have a gun, and can find one.....a sick social predator would just find another way to get an account.....I think the ACLU has worn out it's welcome.....
 @lizziemac I really do not understand HOW the court justified overturning the ban. ALL felons, are banned from owning guns, even felons that did not use a gun in the commission of a crime, so why not Facebook? I mean really, does a sex offender 'need' to get on Facebook? No.  I cannot think of a single reason why they would 'need' too. Maybe if they had thought about the consequences of their actions BEFORE they offended it would not be a problem.
@lizziemac You do know what the ACLU really means don't you? it stands for the American Communist Lawyers Union. their founding members were all known members of the Communist party.
@Exiled_Patriot I thought it stood for All Criminals Love Us.
 @The WA Mama  @Exiled_Patriot how about the real meaning "American Civil Liberties Union"BTW: The ACLU founders were not communist. The primary client of the ALCU in the 1920s was the communist party.
 @Exiled_Patriot  @lizziemac Careful your paranoia is showing.
Viagra makes you ignorant?
This article neglects to mention that Facebook's Terms of Service currently bans sex offenders from using the site anyway. Other social networking sites do not seem to have such rules in place themselves, which is unfortunate. Even prohibiting a sex offender from using the internet at all as terms of their probation does not actually stop them. It simply gives their probation officer cause to have them arrested for a probation violation while their probation lasts.
ACLU to the defense of sex offenders....
When does the ACLU defend our childrens' civil liberties to grow up without becoming prey for these monsters?
ACLU is a sex offenders best friend.
 @Rider The ACLU protects ANYBODY's rights, regardless of their actions. They are there to keep our rights from being trampled on just as much as any soldier in the military.
Protect the sex offenders but to hell with those of us trying to protect our right against fines from the government for not being 'compelled' to buy mandated health insurance coverage. Glad our courts can figure out what is and is not constitutional. #Facepalm
 @SoTweetie If you don't have health insurance and have a horrible accident and need lots of medical care all of the rest of us have to pay for your care and you go bankrupt which also costs the rest of us in the long run. Would you rather you just be left to die?
@jcman I have never passed any of my medical bills on to others, or paid anyone else's. Unpaid medical costs should be absorbed by the service provider, not at all tied to taxation. The government shouldn't be involved in ensuring bills are paid for any business in private industry.
 @Jatok  @SoTweetie The problem with the unpaid medical costs being absorbed by the service provider is that there are so many of the unpaid costs that they'd be out of business in less than a year, so they pass the costs on to everyone including insurance companies and people to pay out of pocket. According to our Constitution every citizen is "entitled' to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. So if you have a life threatening injury or illness there is a responsibility for all citizens to step up and help in this situation and we do that through the government via the taxes we pay and the insurance premiums we pay which are increased by the need of providers to cover their costs.Â
@SoTweetie This is a foreign concept in this day and age. We are thoroughly entrenched in the "me" and "my entitlements" age of doing things. The new norm apparently.