Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules Sex Offenders Can't Be Barred From Social Media (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina law that prevents sex offenders from posting on social media where children might be present, saying it "impermissibly restricts lawful speech." In doing so, the Supreme Court asserted what we all know to be true: Posting is essential to the survival of the republic. The court ruled that to "foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights." The court correctly noted that "one of the most important places to exchange views is cyberspace." The North Carolina law was ruled to be overly broad, barring "access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge."
Right now, some politicians are planning how best they can pass a new law that will do exactly the same, but be just different enough that it can be tied up in court for a few years before being struck down.
Sex offenders are perhaps the most reviled people in the US. Any law which causes them difficulty is an easy pass with overwhelming public support.
Too... many... unanimous... decisions... head... exploding...
Historically, most SCOTUS decisions have been unanimous, and the proportion has actually been growing in recent years.
Most decisions are either 9-0 or 5-4. The 9-0 decisions are common when it is a matter of the law, as in this case. The 5-4 decisions are common when it is a partisan issue.
Sorry, I flubbed the cut-and-paste for the citation. Here it is: Most decisions are either 9-0 or 5-4. Scroll down for a graph of 9-0 vs 5-4 decisions.
In the US--pursuing child molesters is the last bastion of the bureaucratic tyrant. No right is beyond revoke and no punishment too severe to stand in the way of "protecting the children".
My local police (like many in the US) has a special web page showing convicted sex offenders.
There is no page showing convicted murderers; somehow the normal public record of that was enough...
What's wrong with this picture?...
As a formerly registered "sex offender" (I plead out because they found a nasty loophole in the law that forced me to make a shitty choice) I have turned a very attentive ear to these issues for a very long time. Ever since the 90s the internet has become an extension of the in-person world and "social media" has become a major component of participation in society at large. These laws that ban sex offenders from social media effectively ban them from society and participation in it, greatly increasing the risk of new crimes. Sex offender laws need to be clawed back. Registration needs to be completely discarded; it has no value when objectively examined over the 25+ years that it has existed and causes more harm than good across the board.
The best way to reform convicts that are not heavily mentally unbalanced (most offenders are one-time offenders and don't go on to have a long rap sheet, after all!) is to help them build social safety nets and positive relationships. To do something other than pursue those specific goals is to intentionally harm society at large.
I bet he could talk Justice Alito into voting for installing a transgender bathroom in the building.
assuming classical party-lines, Republicans would have no issue with a 'Trans-specific' bathroom, it would be liberals that would find it offensive.
As a reminder, the issue that this country obsessed about an embarrassingly long time was with the requirement that transgender individuals to use bathrooms that conform with what's between their legs...
Ken