Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
I'm curious if anyone else has experienced this...not sure when it actually occurred, but my boyfriend (who's SO status has become public within the past month or so due to a level decision) told me that he has had trouble logging into his Facebook account within the past few days. Today I went on my own Fb to look at his profile, and he no longer exists...same thing on Instagram. I'm thinking his social media accounts have been wiped due to his status? Which I would think is illegal. But has anyone else/their SO family member experienced this?
At one time in some states---North Carolina----for example, it was illegal for a registered sex offender---a RSO---to have or even access a social media account such as Facebook. There were a few other states that had this law, as NC was not the only state. If the government found out a RSO had a social media account, they would arrest him.
Then earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court, made a ruling in the Packingham case, which basically said that denying RSO off paper—no longer on probation or parole-- a social media account was a violation of the First Amendment for free speech.
http://tinyurl.com/y8cuu2z3
“North Carolina law made it a felony for a registered sex offender “to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages.”
“The state has prosecuted over 1,000 people under that law. Petitioner was indicted after posting a statement on his personal Facebook profile about a positive traffic court experience. State courts upheld the law. THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED. THE STATUTE IMPERMISSIBLY RESTRICTS LAWFUL SPEECH IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.”
The USSC ruling did not apply to RSOs on probation or parole. A RSO on probation or parole cannot have a social media account, since I doubt any PO would allow it. Remember, someone on probation or parole is still serving his court mandated sentence and is under the custody of the DOC or BOP, if the crime was a federal crime.
With the USSC decision, a RSO off any form of paper time can access and even have a social media account without any legal problems. The problem is that Facebook states in its Terms of Use---TOS--- that a RSO is not allowed to have an account; Facebook has made this decision. Since Facebook is a privately owned entity, they are allowed to keep RSOs from having accounts. The USSC decision could not force a private entity to allow a RSO to have an account.
The USSC ruling stated that it was not illegal for a RSO to have a social media account, but they could not force a private company such as Facebook to allow it.
When your BFs sex offender status became publicly known, someone must have reported him to Facebook. If they get a complaint that a RSO is using their site, they will deactivate the account.
rewdiazepam
Suchaslife - what accounts did he have to give his passwords for? Not for logging into email, order things online, etc?
You asked, “Rewdiazepam - isn't this restriction a violation of the first amendment?”
No. The USSC Packingham decision only stated that RSOs could not be punished for accessing social sites and that it is not illegal to do so. It did NOT mandate that the owners of certain web sites must allow RSOs on their site or to become a member of their site. Facebook is a privately owned site.
Let’s take an example we have all seen at one time or another. If you do much shopping, you will notice some establishments have a small sign on the front door as you enter which says, “No shirt, no enter” or “No shoes no enter.” These businesses are privately owned and as such, they can dictate who comes into their store.
Having said that, there are people who Facebook can probably not keep off their site. These people are people who belong to a “protected” class in accordance with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
http://tinyurl.com/yaasg42y
““A protected group or protected class is a group of people qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority. In the United States, the term is frequently used in connection with employees and employment.”
Here are some examples of groups of people who are considered a protected class---
Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets 'sex' to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity [2]
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
You said, “Unless an SO plans/commits a crime via social media, it just doesn't make sense to restrict an SO from using a site to communicate with others .”
The business owners or the owner of a website feels as if RSOs contribute to the problem of human trafficking so they keep them off their site. The owners believe that potential crime does occur on their site, since CP is traded through some of these sites. And, there is potentially the problem that a RSO might a minor via Facebook. If I remember correctly, a 13 year old can have a Facebook account.
A RSO does not have to commit a crime via social media to be banned. After all, some states do not allow RSOs to reside within “x” amount of feet from schools, daycare centers, parks, swimming pools, or anywhere children congregate. RSOs are restricted here without committing another crime.
“U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin or religion.”
Felons or RSOs are NOT a protected class, so a privately owned site has right to not allow these groups of people on their site. They don’t want RSOs communicating with others, so the offenders are banned.
Some states require a RSO to give them their passwords to sites in which children may be present. Additionally, some states require an RSO to divulge his email accounts.
http://tinyurl.com/ydcvrd6y
“Privacy advocates are questioning an aggressive Georgia law set to take effect Thursday that would require sex offenders to hand over Internet passwords, screen names and e-mail addresses.
“Georgia joins a small band of states complying with guidelines in a 2006 federal law requiring authorities to track Internet addresses of sex offenders, but it is among the first to take the extra step of forcing its 16,000 offenders to turn in their passwords as well.”
Hope this helps.
rewdiazepam
That's what we did with my hubby's
I myself have several accounts lol
Somebody has got something twisted, or maybe I have a cool registration officer.
Not all states have this login/password requirement; this requirement is not a federal statute.
At one time Georgia did require passwords as they passed a law in 2008---
http://tinyurl.com/yc4eje7y
“Privacy advocates are questioning an aggressive Georgia law set to take effect Thursday that would require sex offenders to hand over Internet passwords, screen names and e-mail addresses.”
This was in 2008.
BUT, that law was repealed in 2010---
https://tinyurl.com/y75anr9m
Scroll down to the bottom----
“USERNAMES/PASSWORDS
“The 2010 sex offender law deletes the requirement that persons on the registry must provide their “e-mail addresses, usernames, and user passwords” to law enforcement officials as part of the required registration information.”
rewdiazepam
I also only have to register one time a year instead of 4 and there is no 150 dollar fee. And people tell everyone"avoid the bible belt"
My bf did create another fb account with a profile picture not including himself, but still including his real name. It got taken down in less than 48 hours. He’s given up for the moment.
josephvenport@outlook.com