NARSOL calls on Zuckerberg, Facebook to change policy
By Robin . . . Having already contacted Mark Zuckerberg by letter dated June 27, 2017, NARSOL has now released a nationwide press release hoping to bring additional pressure upon the social media giant to cease its nearly nine-year-old practice of barring registered citizens from creating or maintaining Facebook user accounts.
While it’s important to note that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Packingham v. North Carolina does not have any controlling impact over Facebook’s corporate policies banning registered citizens, NARSOL believes that the Court’s rationale along with the reasoning behind the decision shine a light on the policy’s moral rectitude in the face of the social media company’s global communications operations — as well as its stated objective to “build community and bring the world closer together.”
NARSOL will monitor Facebook’s posture in response to the letter and the press release. You are encouraged to do your part in adding pressure to the mix. Contact Facebook. Ask questions about why they have adopted such a policy. Challenge them to live up to their corporate mantra and allow ALL Americans to utilize their social media forum for the reasons that make it a mainstay of daily activity in the lives of millions of people across the planet.
Facebook’s corporate headquarters: 1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Facebook’s phone number: 650-308-7300
Asking them won’t do any good. Someone needs to sue them.
I hope Facebook and all of society have a change of heart when it comes down to offender . Remember if you want people to change their behaviors you have to give them an opportunity to fit into society And that includes Facebook, Twitter , myspace ,Instagram, YouTube these sites is not only for entertainment but it can also lead to housing and jobs ..
I don’t think they lead to housing. Jobs possibly
I have to disagree with you Jonny. I am a real estate investor by trade and I advertise extensively on Facebook as well as many of my competitors. This includes if any of us have a home for sale or for rent. While most of us do advertise elsewhere as well, it does make it more convenient for someone looking for housing.
You seem to be in the best position for that actually since your account seems to have disappeared rather recently, but I would ask that we wait to see if asking them will do any good. I don’t think it’s appropriate to assume they won’t answer the letter. Until the SCOTUS decision came down, they were perfectly legal in their decision to ban us. Now, that legality could be questioned. Anyone who was banned prior to the decision though would probably not have any legal standing.
I can imagine how Zuckerberg will respond. No changes. He has stated before, in a Facebook live open discussion, that he considers Facebook to be both a community and a school. You wouldn’t allow sex offenders in a school, so why allow them on Facebook, where they can easily encounter children online? So unless there are legal actions that cost Facebook money and reputation, I don’t see this changing.
There are no laws prohibiting where sex offenders can physically be in PA….including schools. As long as they are not on supervision and have successfully completed or are in treatment, there are no restrictions. Of course if someone wants to harrass u and call the cops or make u feel uncomfortable…..that just sucks, but its not illegal if ur not doing anything wrong. Concert, meeting, conference etc
Then ask Mark Zukerberg if he thinks all the high school aged kids that got hit with sex offense convictions are part of the predators he seems to think we all are.
I’m sure Mr Zukerberg has some college “skeletons” of a sexual nature in his own closet from those frat parties.
The hypocrisy in our society is truly getting vomit inducing.
You always bring up high school kids in all your post. While many are convicted of sex offenses the majority are actually adults
I bring up high school aged kids in my posts because lately I’m seeing so many news reports of high school aged kids getting charged with the very same sex “crimes” that many of us have been charged with and our lives forever ruined because of it.
So when FB starts dropping more and more people (SO’s) of all ages from their site and starts wondering why site traffic is diminishing, they can figure it out and blame themselves.
Also, the population needs to get it through their heads that (according to the laws being passed over the last 2 decades) damn near everything that was once normal human behavior is now a crime and their precious children are NOT immune to being charged and convicted for it.
You assume that when he said school, he was referring to school age academics. He was more likely referring to the word school in both a collegiate sense and a continuing educational sense. In the context, it appears to me that he is using it in the sense that it is an educational resource for people to self-educate.
Jeremy Heady,
I did not misconstrue what Mark Zukerberg said in regards to calling Facebook a “school”.
I’m referring to the MEAT of the matter; Sex offenders posing a threat to the Facebook community’s safety.
Mark has to realize (not sweep it under his carpet) that the very people he wants to help protect (those precious, angelic children) are also the ones getting sex offense charges and convictions of their own.
How did you miss my point?
And if Facebook is a place for “self education”, it’s no wonder we have so many Antifa and SJW idiots rioting and protesting things they don’t even know enough about in the first place.
Yeah, HARDLY a place for self education.
That comment was in response to Thomas Darby’s post, not yours Maestro. I hope that clears up your confusion.
FB is a publicly traded company and has to follow all kinds of FTC and SEC rules and regulations. Do any of these rules prohibit FB from discrimination of any one group?
Also, now that SCOTUS has ruled that RSO’s have a constitutional right to use social media, would any government office/agency/elected official that has a FB account be violating some sort of regulation that prohibits the government from any official business with a company that discriminates? Wouldn’t that be something if federal law now prohibits every government agency, elected official, etc. from using FB because FB bans RSO’s?
The reality is a legal staff 500 Deep & deep pockets.
While you bring up an interesting point, you used the word “discriminate”. As of the current time, RSOs and convicted felons are permitted to be discriminated against. We are not protected under any anti-discrimination statutes. I would like to see that changed eventually though as it prevents proper reintegration into society.
If you punish your teenager because he/she disrespected you or just doesn’t follow your rules, do you punish that teenager for the rest of their lives? Do you take their PlayStation and Xbox and smartphones away from them forever? Even long after they’ve learned their lesson?
Well, then “society” needs to offer the same forgiveness and ‘moving on’ that we give to kids who screw up. Sometimes screw ups are intentional, often times not.
If no one will forgive, it almost makes the punishment useless in the first place.
An employee does something wrong that CAN BE rectified, BUT, the punishment may be to get a few days suspension (it’s happened to me and a few days of not getting paid hurt big time).
After the punishment and a good talking to from the boss, you are given another chance to do the right thing. Mess up again and then you can be terminated.
I don’t know (or care) how many of us on here have messed up more than once. But I’m going to assume that most sex offenses have happened once with each of us. If you have a prior record for getting into a fight in a bar, that’s irrelevant.
If we’re not going to be forgiven, then don’t pander to their “oh the poor victim” rants.
Maybe, since I’m an individual and not a programmable robot, I see things differently.
If they don’t like me – SCREW THEM.
And I tell them all the same thing which leaves their faces looking like a deer in headlights; Yeah, I messed up and had a rendezvous with a teenage under legal age, but she’s as much a victim of me as Pricilla is to Elvis Presley.
If anyone is bothered at how I look at my offense NOW, 12 years AFTER it happened, well, ooopsies. I’ve given up on giving a shit. Thanks to the experience of society, the SO treatment groups and probation’s mental illness of I’m so dangerous – but ONLY for the duration of my probation. After that, they don’t give a hoot what I do or where I go or action plans/travel plans, approved supervisors for attending events, etc, etc, etc.
Y’all know the deal.
Actually, what SCOTUS has ruled is that the state may not deny access of social media to registered citizens and to do so is an infringement on our civil rights.
The under that ruling, FB and other private agencies are free to operate as they please… Until a successful civil action against that policy happens and the pain in their pocket book teaches them otherwise.
I suspect that they won’t respond at all. If I am right or if they respind unfavorably, will NARSOL then consider involving an attorney to look into suing on discrimination grounds?
Fred,
FB must maneuver. FB TOS (their constitution) changes regularly. FB removes( broadcast via web pages) upon complaint & moderation.. TOS rules apply as needed. FB users agreement clearly states they retain ultimate refusal. NARSOL itself has a page.
The reluctant cake baker V same sex couple seems analogously. Except the SO cannot walk in the door, TO ASK FOR A CAKE!
This fight is the frontier line combat for electronic liberty of mankind. Heads up to the staff at………….. EFF.org!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again;
Facebook “adopted” such a policy because of former CT state attorney general Richard Blumenthal (now a state senator). Prior to him opening his BIG MOUTH, Facebook did NOT have such a policy.
But….keep this in mind also….now that they have implemented such a policy, it’s gonna be a tough fight for them to retract it with the potential onslaught of all the hateful soccer mom’s out there.
Kinda like Megan’s Law. Now that it’s brainwashed the entire country, there’s no way they’ll ever retract it.
You also stated that Mark originally told him no and then was pressured with a lawsuit. This gives me hope. While I agree that he would get a lot of hate and resistance by changing the policy, he could do it without making a huge deal out of it. This happens all of the time in business to protect reputation. When the policy is changed, he doesn’t have to post about how he stands up for first amendment rights or anything like that. He just changes it, sends users an email that the TOS has been changed, and then, as usual, nobody ever reads it. I’ll be watching for it.
I’ll match your Blumenthal and raise Jim Sensenbrenner (R WIS).
Actually I would wager that very few people know about the TOS. Hell, I am a computer guy and until it hit me, I didn’t know. No one reads those things unless it pertains to them. So they could change the TOS, allow SO’s on it, and no one except us would even know it changed.
CT Department of CORRECTIONS programs instruct us to contribute to society, support ourselves and become good citizens, but I served six years for writing my book “The Solution to All of Humanity’s Problems” in prison. Now I finally get out and I find that I cannot go on social media to market the book. If Facebook’s new mission statement is “To give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together,” like CT DOC, they are dismantling community, dividing the world and preventing CORRECTIONS to society. In effect, I cannot even TELL people my book is at Lulu.com, and I am only TAGGED as a sex offender. Among other things, my CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS (against incarceration, etc.) are not being read due to the very CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS I AM OFFERING SOLUTIONS TO. Mark Zuckerberg, remember your mission statement and the US Constitution before you make any decision to continue denying UNALIENABLE rights of WE THE PEOPLE.
I would be one of the first to contact them except for one caveat. Even though I live in a state that requires me to submit my online identifiers (Indiana), my state does not go out of its way to give that information to Facebook or any other social media site (as far as I know). I set up my Facebook account about 3 years ago and it has not been affected by Facebook management yet. I have over 1000 friends, manage 4 pages, and am an admin of a group with over 20,000 members. I have also spent money advertising on Facebook for my business. I have had a few run-ins with haters that discovered my status though and quickly blocked them. After hearing some comments on here, I’m wondering if deleting our accounts just doesn’t happen as often as we think.
Even though it doesn’t have a huge impact on my account right now, I would still like to see the TOS changed. If Zuckerburg does change it, it will be quietly and possibly with other changes so as not to bring attention to it. I believe he knows the right thing to do, but is working on a way to do it without it negatively affecting the platform.
I would love to see the letter that was written to him. Our advocacy efforts would be scaled up demonstrably which is what the first amendment protections were designed for. Take, for example, the zillion news sites that only allow commenting through Facebook. How many of us see the comments delivering inaccurate and hateful information and can’t do anything about it? While I can do something about it since I do have an account, my fear is that standing up for our cause with my real name and my Facebook account may get me reported and my account closed. Therefore, I avoid it.
I live in a state that apparently does not provide identifiers. They got wind of my account because I was involved in a bunch of haters saying everything they could about me, and that got to Facebook, who deleted my account. I decided to try again, with a different email address, and it was only 3 days until that one was gone, I hadn’t even reported that one to registration yet.
Here’s the letter; this should work. In case it doesn’t, click on the link in Robin’s post; just click “the letter” in the first sentence.
http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Zuckerberg.pdf
An excellent letter. Of course keep us posted if they reply.
Children are not stupid. The majority of children know not to talk to strangers. After all occasionally there will be a news story where a child will run away from a stranger. So they are taught about stranger danger. They need to be taught through the schools, their parents and even social networks like Facebook on how to stay safe online, how to use their privacy settings, how to not be a victim of cyber bullying and the dangers of taking risky pictures. Facebook needs to have a message on the accounts for minors that explains that just like they would not talk to an adult that they do not know in the real world, they should not talk to anyone that they do not know in the online world.
Stranger danger is a misnomer, because most offenses against children (93%) are perpetrated by those known and trusted in the community. Roughly 30% are family members, and roughly 60% are close friends: Coaches, babysitters, teachers, priests, etc. Your suggestion is not based in facts.
TNF 13
Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse
The problem with teaching “stranger danger” is that they are being taught ONLY to fear ADULTS. No adult is being honest to these kids that OTHER KIDS COMMIT CRIMES, TOO.
That’s why to most all kids under 16-ish, anyone over the age of 21 is “creepy” when all you do is hold a friggin door open for them at a retail store.
Yeah kiddo, you’re the one wearing BLACK nail polish and eyeliner AND you’re a male….but I’m the creepy one. Ok. Sure.
It’ll be retracted. Keep up the facts, Keep up the Faith & Keep up the fighting. Be productive, advancing citizens, be good to & love all of humanity. Don’t re-offend and we Will be, & We will have everything you all want. It Will Happen. 5 years tops.
And that is just about the best advice anyone could give “Don’t re-offend” and now with my own emphasis “DON’T RE-OFFEND” Just imagine how difficult it would be to push a registration if the recidivism rate was “0”. Wow, just think of the supreme court opinions than “Well sex offenses are horrible and we have to protect our children from the, wait is this correct, no one re-offends? Why are we even here?”
I know must of us on this forum already believe this, and are not going to re-offend, but that statement just hit me like a ton of bricks, and no I have never even thought about re-offending, but if we really want to make a difference Don’t re-offend, and don’t let anyone else re-offend. Let’s actually become our brother’s keeper and do what is right, and this will go away. Come on people, we can get down to a zero re-offense rate.
I don’t know why I got on this rant, but it is worth thinking about. Take the pledge – no re-offense
I had a facebook about 5 years ago until I got an email explaining why my account was debited. So I thought about it for about an hour and said there is more then one way to skin a cat sorta speak, or just stick it to Facebook I created a Facebook page in my mom’s name,she does use it once in a while,but I use it way more then she does, and I never gotten a notice from Twitter ot LinkedIn saying they were deleting my accounts for being an S.O. so they are still active using my real name. Now I am just waiting to see what happens in the Does v Snyder Case,and The case of People v Temelkoski in Michigan. The Temelkoski case is very similar to the Snyder case except it ONLY involves Michigan registrants. We are suppose to have a decision on the Temelkoski case by the end of July, hopefully before the end of July. If any one is curious about that case you can find the oral argument on YouTube. People of Michigan v Temelkoski.
i am not sure twitter and linkedin have a ban on S.O.s. Facebook does. Be Careful, people have been arrested for using a family member’s Facebook if they didn’t report it.
I have much less faith in elected judges ruling in our favor. State Supreme Court justices are elected, not appointed for life as the Federal justices are. So don’t get your hopes up too high. Snyder looks more promising to me, but I will admit, the whole solicitor general reveiw thing has me uneasy. He will have discussions with the Dept. of Justice, and we know how tough on crime Jeff Sessions is out to be in his orders for judges to apply the maxium punishment on even the pettiest offenses.
I agree that Snyder, without question, is the single most important case regarding the future for SO’s. The Packingham ruling, and other lesser cases have been good, and offer reason for hope, but there remains a mountain before us. AG Sessions could well be the monster in the mix, and you can bet he will be vocal in his opinions against RSO’s. A loss on Does vs Snyder will potentially be the best – or the worst- ruling as far as registration laws are concerned. The integrity of the SCOTUS is the key, and at this point I have a measure of confidence in their integrity. There is NO constitutional basis for the current registry laws, and we simply must hope that SCOTUS will have the courage and compassion to correct past mistakes and grant us relief from such an oppressive existence. I understand that not everybody is Christian, but this I do know: a humble, believing, desperate heart, poured out to a living and Almighty God can literally move mountains. We can look to the courts for help, but we must look beyond them for the power to bring true and lasting change. Not trying to be “preachy,” just hoping to expand the range of our vision.
A small correction: My comment shuld not have read, ” a loss on Does vs Snyder…” Just the ruling in general could be the best or worst case scenario.
With all due respect, I think you are wrong. Sessions, or whoever takes his place when Trump gets pissed and fires him, will be irrelevant. The government’s case for sex offender registries has always been the “frightening and high” danger of sex offender recidivism. That is the federal government’s only card to play. Hell, Sessions’ highly punitive nature may actually work in our favor. The justices may very well see just how punitive these registries have become.
The ruling against Michigan’s registry was based largely (if not solely) on statistical evidence that shows low sexual offense recidivism rates among convicted, and therefore registered, offenders. That data will be central to the Does’ arguments in the case. The state and federal governments can only do what NC tried to do in Packingham: “But these are SEX OFFENDERS.” The court has demonstrated with Packingham that the states no longer have carte blanche authority to oppress people who have served their sentence and are no longer under supervision.
My only fear right now in the Snyder case is if Kennedy decides to step down or if one of the more liberal judges retires or passes away. That would give Trump another spot on the bench to fill.
Wow, you got an email? I just tried to log in and discovered that it said my account was disabled, and if I thought it was a mistake I could appeal. However the appeal turned into an email that just said (paraphrased) “Tough shit, you are disabled and we aren’t even going to talk about it”
Here’s an idea for Facebook. Let offenders on, but have a setting built in to the accounts so that any account of a person under age 18 is simply not visible to an offender. Will some people fall through the cracks? Sure, like those kids who lie about their age on their profiles. But it’d be the least restrictive means to “protect” whoever Facebook claims they’re protecting
You know, I toyed with presenting this same idea. My oldest daughter just turned 13 earlier this year and I set up her Facebook account. I noticed that there are no privacy restrictions on her account due to her age unless I set them up that way, which I did. This could be something they are working on so they can change their TOS. The only reason I don’t think it has changed yet is because Facebook is testing algorithms like this to provide more safety to minors. I hope I’m right. States that submit the identifiers to Facebook, like New York as mentioned, should be changing their laws soon in light of Packingham though. My state does not do this, but we have to register identifiers. I have had no problem with my account in over 3 years.
Since the majority of countries in the world do NOT have an online sex offender registry. I do wonder how Facebook could delete the accounts of foreign sex offenders from Facebook? So it seems to me that Facebook can only target American registrants.Discrimination? Are there any stats on the number of offenders who have committed offences against children on Facebook? Facebook is not a dating site, you can’t search for a person by an age range. So it seems to me that the person would have to know the minor offline or through a different type of online forum, to get that minors Facebook. So i think it would be difficult for a registrant to randomly try to find minors on Facebook. Personally i don’t care about Facebook, it just seems like a different type of database of citizens . These days there is too much over sharing, in fact i know of quite a few people who hardly use Facebook anymore or who have deleted their accounts. In fact people who use social networks a lot have suffered from depression and loneliness. I wonder if there will come a point when people just get bored of Facebook.
Here is a news article from March of this year, from the BBC. Where British reporters reported illegal images of children that were on Facebook to Facebook. Only to find Facebook reporting the reporters to the British police, and discovering that Facebook didn’t remove much of the illegal content. There is a quote from a former Facebook executive saying that social networks were in danger of becoming a police state. The issue from this news article is not of adults contacting children to commit crimes, but of adults swopping images of children. Here is the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39187929
You can see how Facebook struggles to monitor illegal content. The other issue they have is of terrorists posting beheading videos and extremist material on Facebook. When will people just accept that we will not live in a completely safe world. The best thing to do is bring up your children to learn how to stay safe and avoid being a victim of crime. Its all about educating young people on the dangers of the world.
In 2007 the New York State Attorney General made a deal with Facebook. To provide Facebook with the online identifiers of registrants. New York also passed the E-STOP Law in 2008, the first of its kind. This law requires registrants to provide their online identifiers and email addresses and the New York Division of Criminal Justice Services passes the information to not only Facebook, but other social network sites that have users who are minors. Here is a link from the press release that also contains a list of other sites that registrants information is passed onto. https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/new-york-state-attorney-generals-e-stop-law-removes-additional-sexual-predators-social
So Facebook gets the online identifiers of registrants from each States law enforcement department. As I commented earlier about how the E-STOP Law works in New York State and how the New York State Attorney General made a deal with Facebook to provide registrants information to Facebook. Wouldn’t that make the E-STOP law invalid? as a result of the Packingham ruling. Wouldn’t law enforcement departments need to stop providing online identifiers to Facebook and stop collecting them from registrants? If that happens then Facebook would find it hard to remove registrants accounts, as they would not have the online identifiers anymore. It wasn’t the public that pushed to keep registrants off Facebook and it wasn’t Facebook that pushed to have registrants off Facebook. It was such Attorney Generals that pushed for it.
In Louisiana, there are two laws regarding social media and RSO’s. First one is an all out ban (presumably no longer due to Packingham). The second requirement is that RSO’s must state their criminal status on their social networking page.
Question: does FB, or any othe social media, have a category of “criminal status”? I know there are things such as relationship status, etc., but criminal status?
So, prior to Packingham, a Louisiana RSO that had a FB account could be arrested for having the account AND for not putting his criminal status on that account. The police in a Louisiana city arrested 20 people in the fall of 2015. Here is the first line of the newspaper story from September 2015 : “Twenty people were charged with unlawful use of social media and failure to provide sex offender status notification on a social media page.”
Louisiana has some awful RSO laws that just do not make sense. For instance, it is illegal for a RSO to work a ride at a carnival, but he can work security or in a food booth at a carnival. Also, an RSO cannot work for a company that pumps sewage tanks but he can work as a dental hygienist. It seems that any time any sort of bill comes up before the Louisiana legislature regarding more restrictions on RSO’s, it gets passed unanimously. So, if you are an ineffective Louisiana legislator and you want to look like you are tough on crime, then write a bill and say you are “protecting children” and your bill will get passed and you can run for re-election saying how awful RSO’s are.
Other Louisiana RSO laws prohibit RSO’s from being within 1000 feet of a school bus. NOT a bus stop, but a school bus that is being driven down the street. So, in order to comply, wouldn’t each RSO need to know the school bus schedules? Have any RSO’s gone to the school districts and requested the schedules? Wouldn’t that shed a bright light on that stupid rule if every Tier 2 and 3 RSO in New Orleans made a request from the school district to have the bus schedules. I bet at that moment the parents of the kids on those buses would turn their anger to the stupid Louisiana law makers that passed that law.
OK, so some of you want to write a letter. Good. You should. I would if I could, but I’m on post-release in NC, so I still cannot access social media.
Anyway, Brenda’s letter was on point. Very well stated position. That’s exactly why we had to write persuasive essays in school people. Nice job Brenda.
I would add (and point out to Zuckerberg) , however, that Facebook’s ban actually makes Facebook a less safe place. Let’s use some common sense. If I am a registered citizen who is doing things right and does not wish to create more victims, then I only use an identifier that the state knows about. I’m not concerned about the state tracking my online activity, because I’m not soliciting minors, not collecting information, not doing anything shady.
If, on the other hand, I am a registered citizen who doesn’t care about creating victims or cannot control my urges, I’m not going to do it in a way that the government can trace it. I’m going to use an email address that the state does not know about. I’m going to post pictures of someone else, so that officers cannot visually connect me to an account. I’m going to operate in the shadows, because that’s what shady people do. Unfortunately, Facebook’s ban forces many RCs to operate in the same shadows, even though their intentions are honest.
If Facebook wants their site to be a safer place, make it a place where RCs can freely log on. Facebook has the list that the states send to them. Use that list to keep a closer eye on RCs. Change the algorithms that detect illicit activity to place more weight to an account that belongs to a registered citizen. People on Facebook with bad intentions would still circumvent the system, but this compromise allows honest people with honest intentions to access the platform without unnecessarily risking the safety of its users.
Chris,
This is what I’ve been saying pretty much. State officials and Facebook figure you won’t be able to commit an offense if you’re banned from internet access. As if a person cannot commit same offense using public transportation such as buses and trains to get around as needed.
But if they said that, they’d have everyone never leaving their houses in this “afraid of its own shadow” society.
They live in their bubble of imaginary “safety” under the belief that people who have no offense record would never commit an offense. Funny because we ALL have a time in our lives when we were criminal-record free.
People with no offenses are catching offense charges all the time on social media but social media and the legislature just keeps saying REGISTERED sex offenders.
For anyone interested in commenting through Facebook (so that more than just Mark read it), the link is:
https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/268228883256323
TNF 13
Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse
http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2017/06/facebook-policy-allows-death-threats.html
Facebook only considers a handful of folks to be vulnerable persons to which threats of violence are taken seriously. This allows vigilante activity to occur so much on Facebook. Bash a registrant? Fine. Call Trump an idiot? Get deleted.
What does it matter anyway? You think these “good honest lawmakers” in the court rooms judging people, and giving outrageous sentences didn’t know what was going to happen? They knew that as soon as they did away with that law, SO’s were going to be denied access to FB. Get it through your head people, we are the modern day lepers. We are even hated by other self righteous criminals, and that makes law makers very happy. I mean, Who cares if an SO is murdered? They’ll be making society a favor. Facebook? Who cares about Facebook anyways?? What I would like to see is some of these ridiculous, outrageous, idiotic laws done away with, or at least cut us some slack. Today its us, tomorrow it’ll be you. Trust me, these problems will come knocking at your doors soon enough, about your son, your brother, your dad and you’ll wish these laws weren’t as harsh. And then we have the media, making society think that most of us are extremely dangerous! Forget about this crap with Facebook and look to the more important things that need to be done. When we, and our families become one voice, then some of these mountains will be removed. Its hard to live with these unforgiving, unloving, self righteous people that think they are better than God. God forgives, but these self righteous people kill. There’s a scripture that reads, ” He that is without sin cast the first stone.
Yeah, and Packingham probably got home from court going “Hallelujah I can get one facebook” only to find his account disabled, but you know what, we can still fight, and it may seem like there is no hope, but we still fight, and we get knocked down, bloodied and bruised, and we get back up and dust our selves off and get ready for the next battle.
I really hope we win this one, because I miss communicating with all my family and friends, but you know what, if we don’t win, there will be another battle tomorrow, and we will get up and fight that one then.
“We are even hated by other self righteous criminals”
And they LOVE to throw off on us to make themselves look good and minimize what they did! Especially the druggies, DUI offenders and wife beaters.
It takes the heat off them to call us perverts, predators and pedophiles.
The universal hatred is normalized and ingrained into society.
I agree. I see tons of these thugs on youtube showing off trying to be celebrity “pedo hunters”. What’s worse is the comments under the video.
The original definition of ‘outlaw’ used to mean someone who is not protected by the authorities; one could do anything to these ‘outlaws’ and no punishment would arise.
Registered citizens are the new designated, government approved outlaws.
You’re right, Facebook doesn’t matter. Except that it does. A lot.
1) Peeling back layers of oppression is a slow and often unsatisfying process. But it is at least progress. Racism is still a problem throughout the country, yet people have been trying to change that since before the Civil War. (I would say that racism has never been LESS of a problem than it is today, but as a conservative Republican white male, even I can admit that it does still happen, and way too often.) Anyway, my point is that while in the grand scheme of things, gaining access to Facebook amounts to a spitball in the war against registries, any victory is worth celebrating and embracing.
2) Gaining access to Facebook gives us a chance to voice OUR views and OUR opinions on whatever topic we care to discuss, including the worthlessness of the registries. Change on a vast scale rarely ever happens any more in the public square or on a soap box in front of a crowd. It happens on social media. THIS is the forum that technology has given us to engage the world. I think the states saw this coming and tried their best to squash our ability to rally against them because they knew the day would come when facts would overcome fear and lies, and they would be exposed as frauds and snake oil salesmen. That day is now. Time to take up your “sword” for the cause. Bitching and moaning ain’t gonna get it done.
I’m not saying to completely disregard Facebook, what I’m merely trying to say is let’s look at the bigger problems, and let’s attack those bigger obstacles these self righteous hypocrites have thrown upon us. In doing this we may conquer these obstacles, then Facebook wouldn’t be so hard to win over. These people have put laws upon that they themselves wouldn’t be able to handle, and these laws were made for many to fail and end up in prison. They are giving 30, 40, 50 sentences just to get rid of us so we need to organize something with the right people and fight for our constitutional rights. They’ve got to ease off a bit, these laws are just to harsh and they are cruel and unusual punishments. If so many of us got together and each one of us put so much money together we could hire a damn good lawyer to help us fight this fight. Every problem has a solution, what goes up must defiantly come down.
The majority of people believe that we derseve cruel and unusual punishments because they assume that
A: Every sexual offense happens to a “child” (whatever their definition of “child” is but typically small, prepubescent kids)
B: That such sexual offense must surely be a blatant rape where in, we held the “victim” on the ground by their throats and forced ourselves upon them.
TV shows like Law & Order: SVU don’t help matters because people ARE idiots and they take scripted TV shows and movies seriously.
Whoever the spokesperson for us is or will be, has to learn to incorporate certain FACTS into their fight for us. Even if you/they think it’s irrelevant to add, it may actually make people use their brains for half a second.
Example; Many of us have had consensual relationships, non-violently, with post pubescent teens who were simply under the states’ legal age statute (16 in 27 states and 17/18 in the rest).
Guess what age is NOT and has not been legal: 14/15. Guess how old Elvis and Pricilla were when they met and fell in love…. Elvis 24, Pricilla 14.
Guess who didn’t get charged with a sex crime. Elvis. So guess who is seen as a music icon of history. Yup, Elvis.
Guess who will NEVER be appreciated no matter what? Us! And all for the difference of the fact that someone called the cops on us.
Guess who blatantly raped a woman and did prison time for it. Tupac (the rapper). Guess who got out of prison and went on to keep making more albums. Tupac. Guess who is still hailed as one of the best rappers/poets of all time. Yup….Tupac.
There is no way to get into the brains of the people of our society to find out what makes them accept some but hate the rest of us.
Trying to talk to the masses about what sex offenses are and how many aren’t harmful at all would be the equivalent of trying to talk reasonably with those Antifa rejects who just yell and scream in your face, call you a nazi and a patriarch and overpower your voice with air horns and other loud noise making devices.
It should also be thrown in the faces of society that even their precious little helpless defenseless children can become sex offenders for simply being curious, experimental teens (a part of the NATURE of mankind). Then throw the links to all these sexting arrests in their faces.
But again, you’ll have goodie-two-shoes parents claiming that will “never happen to MY kid”. Because somehow they’re better than everyone else.
The time has come to stop pandering to the politically correct bullshit that the system, media or general public WANTS to hear and start simply telling them like it is.
If they can’t handle facts and truths, send them to a “safe space” with a few puppies they can pet for a while until they mentally mature.
Facebook has no rule about serial killers, jihadists who’ve killed people or gang members who sell drugs to children and pimp them out, beat them up etc – I don’t understand society anymore I think because it’s come to a point where a person would prefer to live next to a known recidivist murderer or serial killer than some guy who had an underage girlfriend in his teens and it became known to police.
This society is completely upside-down and it’s time things changed. I want to believe it will change but deep down I know it’s going to get a LOT worse before it gets any better; if it gets better which is doubtful. :/
You’ve echoed the words of many of us with your comment. Yes, society has its head shoved firmly up its own ass.
How do we go about prying it out so they can all THINK more clearly?
Just an open thought here about FB being the public square or on the public square known as the internet: If you are going to restrict membership like they do, then need to be member driven by fee, not free. I say that because if you are using the public square known as the internet and making your membership free, then it really needs to be open to everyone regardless. I don’t care if you a publically traded company, like FB is, you need to be open to all regardless with free membership. To ensure your membership is what you want, you need to be fee driven then so you can allow who you want and remove who you want by your TOS.
That actually makes perfect sense.
Charging a fee is a way to make themselves more “private” like a County Club and then they have all the right in the world to pick and choose who can join.
However, for those of us who have non-violent offenses and for those among us who were minors themselves when they committed an offense, the dating websites will claim they never need to open their doors to us (as if we don’t have a right to date/marry ever) by using it against us that WE said we’ll accept not being able to join a membership fee site.
now that SCOTUS has ruled that RSO’s have a constitutional right to use social media, Hmmm, how about this, Scotus rules that the registry is punishment and is unconstitutional then give me a one way ticket to a country of my choice, to hell with Facebook and social media. I have had enough of this country for which I paid for my crime many years ago in full.
I think the next battle should be the Sex Offender Registry itself because it is an open secret that the Registry with its strict conditions, restrictions, and penalty is a punishment. No matter how much those in the Supreme court try to sugarcoat about the Registry, at the end of the day, people have end up under a bridge (even homeless shelters do not accept the labelled citizens), some killed by self righteous vigilantes, and many more are at the brink of losing everything.
So right! I ended up homeless for 6 months due to a violation of probation that I ended up beating because it was a ridiculous reason to violate. And it took me about a month befor being evicted from my home to find a shelter that would accept me.
And guess which shelters turned sex offenders away….
The CHRISTIAN ones. Ironic.
Sad that so many Christian (?) organizations are seemingly void of mercy towards so many today (RSO’s in particular). However, such organizations are not truly Christian. In America much that passes itself off as “Evangelical” is merely a self-styled, self-serving, and self-righteous political entity. These organizations cannot be considered Christian, they are simply America’s version of Christian…and they are in no way lovers or followers of Christ. Political Christianity is a fraud, otherwise there would be no discrimination towards anyone. Don’t accept such, Maestro, as representing true Christianity. For most assuredly they do not!
I agree that some churches and organizations that are Christian do not show the love and compassion by which that name should be known. However, in thinking about it, all of the churches and organizations I have become aware of in reading and research that do include registered citizens among those to whom they minister, that welcome registered citizens and their families into their midst, and that operate reentry and work programs designed specifically for registrants are also Christian.
Not many countries in the world have an online sex offender registry. Now sex offenders in those countries have no restrictions on where they should live and their coummunities aren’t always aware that a sex offender is living next to them. And sex offences has not gone increased as a result of those countries having a sex offender registry that is NOT opened to the public and only opened to law enforcement. So why is the registry here in the States online? What is the reasoning to have an online registry? In thise BBC article the British Police are focusing their monitoring on the most dangerous sex offenders and relaxing checks on low risk offenders. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40451318
Also in England. If you have children and you are dating someone and you would like to know if they have a sex offence. You can go t the Police Station and they will tell you. they log everything down about the person making the enquiry. They call is Sarah’s law/sex offender disclosure scheme.
So, has there been any response from Facebook?