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."
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.
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.
My local police (like many in the US) has a special web page showing convicted sex offenders.
My neighbor is on the list ... for having sex with his wife. At the time, he was 18 and she was 15. Her parents disapproved and called the police to break up the relationship. He got probation, but still went on the list for life. They were married on her 18th birthday. Her parents didn't come to the wedding.
Because he is a "child molestor" he cannot go to PTA meetings, parent-teacher conferences, or even step foot in a school.
Their son is my son's best friend. Do I worry about him playing at their house? Of course not.
I am not sure if the sex offender list is a good or bad idea in principle, but the way it is actually implemented is idiotic.