Victims’ advocate wants unlimited Facebook access — does that apply to all?

By Sandy . . . I read with interest “Facebook block riles advocates of sex crime survivors.” Racheal Gonzales of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has posited an interesting position: Governmental officials and representatives should not be able to block constituents who disagree with them on their Facebook pages because it prohibits the critics’ ability to make their positions known and exercise their right to free speech.

Emboldened by a ruling that said our president could not do that, Ms. Gonzales says she wants this policy extended to all.

NARSOL agrees.

Ms. Gonzales may be unaware, although I doubt it, that Facebook itself blocks those who are on a sexual offense registry from using its services. These citizens are prohibited not only from expressing their own political views via this medium but are also refused the ability to read the opinion of others. Does Ms. Gonzales find this practice equally reprehensible? Will she speak up for the rights of all to have the same access to their elected officials for which she advocates for survivors of assault?

What if Facebook denounced its policy of blocking its services from citizens who are on sexual offense registries? Does Ms. Gonzales believe that they should have equal access to the Facebook pages of the representatives of their government in order to advocate against laws with which they disagree?

Or what about me? I have unfettered access to Facebook as I am not a registered sexual offender. However, based on years of research and examination of legislation aimed at registered persons, and in spite of my sincerest empathy with Ms. Gonzales as a former victim of sexual assault, I am opposed to Racheal’s Law. I have found that legislation based on one specific situation or person will ultimately, in umbrella fashion, be applied and used to limit the rights of many, most of whom are not in the same situation or circumstance. I further believe that the constitutional guarantee of the accused having the right to face his accuser is not something that should be taken lightly.

Therefore, had I taken to the Facebook pages of the legislators who favor Racheal’s Law to protest against it, making clear and supporting my reasons, would Ms. Gonzales defend my right to do so? If I has persisted in a “polite but pointed” way to express my opinions, to the point that the owners of the pages grew weary of my rhetoric and blocked me, would Ms. Gonzales make known to all that I had every right to continue access in order to express my opposition?

Or if I, a strong opponent of the public sex offender registry, besieged the Facebook pages of legislators whose votes reflect support of the current system, appealing to them to support only fact-based legislation and printing links to research studies showing those facts, and they blocked me, would I find a champion in Ms. Gonzales? Would she file a complaint with the Attorney General’s office on my behalf?

I call upon her to work with us. If the noble goal of free and open discourse with ones’ elected officials is not only a desirable commodity but also a protected right, surely that applies to all, even to those whose opinions and stances on the issues do not mesh with her own.

So join your voice with us, Racheal Gonzales. Speak out for true equality and justice for all. Show that you really mean what you say.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Sandy Rozek

Sandy is communications director for NARSOL, editor-in-chief of the Digest, and a writer for the Digest and the NARSOL website. Additionally, she participates in updating and managing the website and assisting with a variety of organizational tasks.

This topic contains 27 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Avatar Maestro 1 year, 1 month ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #42415 Reply
    Sandy Rozek
    Sandy Rozek
    Admin

    By Sandy . . . I read with interest “Facebook block riles advocates of sex crime survivors.” Racheal Gonzales of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has posited
    [See the full post at: Victims’ advocate wants unlimited Facebook access — does that apply to all?]

  • #42417 Reply
    Avatar
    ALAN

    I am not entirely sure, specifically, just why SORA victims (defining “victim” as us who are unconstitutionally on any SORA list) (see, e.g. the 6th cir. Ct. of appeals ruling) are unable to use social media. Many so-called “offenders’ ” convictions had nothing to do with social media, and we registrants use various social media sites responsibly. These social media sites allow us to not only have a discourse about legal issues, and with elected officials and those running for elected positions, and keep apprised of their platforms, but also local news outlets, the businesses we frequent, and of course families and friends in ways we cannot otherwise do. Social media allows us the protected constitutional right of free speech in all forms. The unconstitutional act of barring us to use these forums stifles us, gags us and tries to keep us ignorant, and tries to keep our voices from being heard. This effectively keeps hundreds of thousands of us from participating in the political processes and many other parts of American life every day.

    I am severely and permanently disabled, a full-time user of wheelchairs, and am unable to go out to visit others. Social media is my only avenue to visit, correspond and have video calling to keep connected, and to help keep me mentally healthy.

    When will true Justice come?

    • #42483 Reply
      Avatar
      Kirk Kubik

      Facebook is very addictive. Period. I agree with this posting but I am better off not on Facebook as it gives me time to enhance my God given talents, and to have actual relationships with those around me. A representatives Facebook account is monitored by a flunky and may not ever be seen by your representative. Personal interactions with my representatives are the only way I can be sure they have heard from me. Not just a secretary sending out a reply with a signature ( called appeasement) . Our time is much better spent loving these people who would hold us back, and not in making people like Mr Zuckerberg richer. Which makes none of us richer, only poorer for having been addicted to his frivolous site. I spent plenty of time before I was outed looking and posting on Facebook up until 2010, then I freaked out for 2 weeks when I got kicked. Finally realizing I had been addicted I was able to put my effort into more positive endeavors. I miss it not. Although at first I missed a few family functions because well “ I posted it on Facebook “ and people finally realized they need to communicate with those of us not on Facebook. Don’t wish for something that may only look better from your side of the fence it isn’t any greener over there. It just looks greener at the moment. ENVY = Green. Let us spend our energy and our talents on something that matters- Our cause to be free from …. all those things we despise. In other words LIBERTY. True Liberty. What I have done is wrong and I have grown into a person who can be trusted. Who is lovable. Who deserves those things we all strive for. I am. Just like you. No better. No worse . A sinner. Passionately LOVED by God. This world is only temporary. What these fools hold against us will be held against them FOREVER. It surely would be nice to be recognized by all as an overcomer. Someone who has put in the work needed to actually change who they were. I will not fret if it doesn’t happen I am in control not those others. They have no control over me. As they have only the control over you that you allow. Become something MORE. Much More. You can do it. Let us quit our whining about how unfair life is, and start being truly thankful for what we have. Praise God.

  • #42421 Reply
    Avatar
    David

    Excellent point, Sandy! Along that same line, as a registrant, I can’t tell you how often I have read an online news article and have been unable to post a comment or counter-argument because that media outlet’s only method of posting a comment is via FaceBook. It’s enormously frustrating.

  • #42423 Reply
    Avatar
    Nosoynadie

    Never going to happen. Most of these advocates can only see their little part of the world.

  • #42424 Reply
    Avatar
    Michael Christianson

    Ms.Gonzales would never commit to such a thing. People like her, the pedocentrists, are advocating only for vindictive justice and the suppression and anialation of a class of people they disdain because it is profitable. Were her, and other pedocentric person’s like her to normalize the conversation it would admit what pedocentrics try desperately to hide – the reality that they are pedosexuals on the opposite side of the spectrum. Having in most circumstances refused to act on their natural inclinations. There is no truth in much of the pedosexual conversation, unfortunately. It’s a sad fact.

  • #42427 Reply
    Avatar
    Jessie Taylor

    Most sex offenders go to prison and serve their time. They pay for their crimes. Unless they are pedophiles why shouldn’t they be allowed to live outside of prison and have the same benefits as all other citizens? Many should not be allowed outside the prison, but there are some first-time offenders that find themselves on the Sex Offender List which haunts them the rest of their lives in all phases of their life. I am quite sure if given access to Facebook and they do something wrong, there are enough eyes out there by law enforcement monitoring them and also Facebook police. If they abuse the system, shut them down. We law non sex-offenders that have access to Facebook get shut down if we post something FB disapproves to.

  • #42429 Reply
    Avatar
    Anthony

    Facebook company policy only to keep Sex Offenders off their website. Zuckerberg should withdraw this policy.

  • #42431 Reply
    Avatar
    Gail Colletta

    Thank you Sandi,
    I could not have said it any better .

  • #42432 Reply
    Avatar
    Tim Lawver

    Truly why the 03 SCOTUS and Mr Roberts fu%&ed up the DOES rulings.
    Those cases demanded “strictest scrutiny” and NOT the ” intermediate scrutiny ” used. The claim that NO LIBERTY INTEREST was implicated by the law on its face and in black and white applied to those already convicted was a broad distortion. Clearly free speech was implicated as the people today utilize the electronic list to ban, bar, or prohibit those who have completed their sentences. Mr. Kennedy expressed that concern in N.C. V. PACKINGHAM

    Is there no liberty interest in the right to remain silent? The MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH RIGHT! Registration forms demand speech because it is the same effect as being interviewed by a state agent.

    During 2011 trial for SOR violation I asked the agent these questions.

    Maam, the SOR demands email addresses etc under threat of felony?
    A: Yes

    Does SOR….. agents intend to communicate with registered persons by email?
    A:No

    Ma’am can you tell the Jury the purpose of collecting email addresses if not for communication, that is the real purpose and intent. Ma’am what are they going to do with it?

    They use it to impose disability and restraint, bar, ban, prohibit, even the right to not speak. Always was the original intent of the electronic list. What’s true is more is coming down the pipe electronically speaking. https://www.eff.org

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/hart-homeland-securitys-massive-new-database-will-include-face-recognition-dna-and

  • #42433 Reply
    Avatar
    James Coghill

    People may joke that others spend too much time on the internet, but this intricate series of tubes has become an important part of everyday life—so much so that it’s become a human rights violation to take it away. That’s according to the United Nations Human Rights Council, which passed a non-binding resolution in June 2016 that condemns countries that intentionally take away or disrupt its citizens’ internet access. (https://gizmodo.com/%5Bobject%20Object%5D Retrieved 06/21/18)

    I was not aware that Facebook patrols it’s members looking for people on the registry. What happens to people with similar names and ages to those on the registry but they are not RSO’s? Most of the prohibition I have seen concerning Facebook has come from probation. Which to my mind is government sanctioned censorship. Part of the problem with the UN comes from non-binding resolutions. I think you would find most nations refusing to agree that internet access including Facebook is a basic human right if it were a binding resolution. Non-binding resolutions are nothing more than lip service to the masses. The function of ALL governments is control and you can’t have control when a population is running around doing and saying whatever they like.

    • #42445 Reply
      Avatar
      Sheryl

      I wasn’t aware that those on the registry weren’t allowed on Facebook. I personally know someone who was on both the registry and Facebook. (Unfortunately for many others, he then used the Facebook medium to solicit pictures from my daughter and at least one other underage girl. Unlike MOST offenders, he re-offended in a major way. It made it really challenging for me to advocate for those on the registry– I know several — because everything was in the newspaper and made very public. I still do advocate for offenders as I had previously, but my credibility is much lower. I know about the pictures because I saw the conversations and talked with him about it. Someone else reported to the authorities.)
      I’m not saying this as fodder for the pro-registry mill! If it will be taken that way, please don’t post this.

      • #42464 Reply
        Avatar
        SW

        There’s always one person that ruins it for the rest.

        It’s like punishing all people who drank alcohol at some point because one or two people ran over someone while drunk driving.

        And to answer your question about Facebook, a person can easily use a fake name or variation. Personally, I think social media should be restricted to those over 18, unless the parent(s) are going to monitor all communication. That opens a whole ‘nother can ‘o worms then.

      • #42475 Reply
        Sandy Rozek
        Sandy Rozek
        Admin

        There will always be a very small percentage who either cannot or will not alter their behavior. We have to accept this as a given. Sheryl, I am very sorry that this affected your family. Thank you for not letting that negative experience destroy your faith in our advocacy, which is for the vast majority who do NOT repeat their behavior or were wrongfully accused and convicted, all of those who struggle with the registry and its impediments to building a meaningful, productive life.

        • #42495 Reply
          Avatar
          Maestro

          Good answer, Sandy. How come people don’t get as frustrated about those who constantly steal or use/sell drugs or keep going back to the gangs after each prison stint?
          No. Only those with a sexual “problem”(?) need to be restricted from everything and one person’s bad behavior effects us all. Bogus.

  • #42447 Reply
    Avatar
    Maestro

    I wonder if FaceBook checks us by our state or by sites like HomeFacts. I checked my state registry and I am no longer listed. I googled my name and found my listing on HomeFacts. I’m considering contacting an attorney about this because my information is NO LONGER public.

    And today, even tho I am no longer on the registry, I STILL received my address confirmation, which I plan to ignore to see if they send their typical 2nd “warning” notice.

    Sandy, I hope you manage to get a dialogue with Ms. Gonzalez, though I doubt she’ll do it. She’ll spew HER rights to do this and that and run from anything logical.

    • #42453 Reply
      Fred
      Fred
      Admin

      HomeFacts is run by the same kind of crooks who ran MugShots. Having an attorney look into it is definitely the way to go.

  • #42457 Reply
    Avatar
    Jamil

    Why does it always seem that when someone (celebrity or not) wants to make a comparison to outline bad or the worst of an argument, they use “Pedophiles” or “Sex Offenders” as their front and center examples?

    Peter Fonda apologizes for Barron Trump tweet

    Newsroom
    Actor Peter Fonda has apologized for a tweet in which he said that President Trump’s youngest son Barron should be separated from his mother and put “in a cage with pedophiles.”
    Source: CNN

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/06/21/peter-fonda-apologizes-for-barron-trump-tweet-stelter.cnn

    • #42465 Reply
      Avatar
      SW

      Because we are the lepers of modern society.

  • #42459 Reply
    Avatar
    SW

    If Facebook, etc, are considered to have (almost) monopolistic power of influence and communication, then nobody over 18 should be blocked from access. It is just another way of excluding a group of people from information, representation, and their opinion. The Supreme Court apparently thinks these social media platforms can inhibit free speech by allowing the blocking of non-constituents, then Facebook blocking people should be illegal.

  • #42476 Reply
    Avatar
    Svejk

    We would all do well to remember that Facebook is a corporate, commercial entity, and refusing to let us on, or booting people off is well within its right and does not implicate the 1st Amendment. When you create an account, you agree to their terms of service, which are always in their favor. Our President was using a US Government official account, through US Government servers and network, and in his case with Twitter, blocking someone *did* implicate the 1st Amendment.

    Having said that, I have had a FB account for years as an RSO, and have never had any problems, so they can’t really be searching too damn hard, and more than likely rely on snitches for the tips. I keep a low profile and do not create waves, and am left alone. Whether this is by intent or negligence, I don’t know, but I’m not complaining.

    Racheal Gonzalez is just another in the long line of people who will push what they can get away with to the limits. These self-serving and self-aggrandizing people do nothing but virtue-signal and cause as much fuss as they can in order to make the lives of others miserable. This is a psychological need to subjugate others to make themselves feel good. Further, she and others are not “victims,” but “survivors,” yet play the pity, hate and victim cards to the fullest extent of what they can get away with. She has NO right to the information, and she can, frankly, piss off and go elsewhere if she doesn’t like it. My bet is Facebook will not comply as this would open it up to lawsuits.

    At some point, folks, we have to collectively stand up and call bullshit on everything that is being perpetrated against us. No one may have noticed, but yesterday the United States pulled out of the UN Human Rights Council and I fear this does not bode well for us all.

    Svejk

    • #42496 Reply
      Avatar
      Maestro

      “Having said that, I have had a FB account for years as an RSO, and have never had any problems, so they can’t really be searching too damn hard, and more than likely rely on snitches for the tips.”

      I’m not sure that it’s snitches because that would mean any time someone gets mad at one of their “friends” on FB or if someone doesn’t like something you said or posted, they can contact FB and lie about you. And FB will take someone’s word without proof, then they’ll ask the accused for proof of who they are in order to restore their profile.

      I had a FB from 2009 to 2014 and then one day it was gone with a note from FB to prove my identity. So I made another profile, did not add ANYONE to my friends list, posted a photo of myself only in my photo album with a main profile pic of a landscape and within 2 days that profile was gone also. I think they somehow do a face recognition on every person that joins.

      I have yet another FB account and not a single photo of me. I basically use it to go into certain groups on there such as movie collectors and rock band fan groups. I have only 5 “friends” , none of whom I know because they friended me from posts in the groups. And one of the people on my friends list is my all time favorite rock star. I was beyond excited when he accepted my friend request cuz his FB had the friend request option disabled for quite a while.

      I’m hoping that now that I am off the registry, I can post my photos with this particular rock band when I meet them backstage next week. But HomeFacts worries me because they still have my image up. 🤷🏻‍♂️

  • #42487 Reply
    Avatar
    Mom

    After actually checking to see just what info Facebook kept about me- deleted conversations-blocked people list. It was creepy enough for me to delete everything and create a fake profile. I don’t need them having a report of my life.
    I’m not on the registry, but my son will be when he gets out of prison. I’ve been preparing for a very different life for 4 years. We just want to be left alone which is what most people want I’m guessing.

    • #42497 Reply
      Avatar
      Maestro

      This is why I miss MySpace. MySpace did not need the sacrifice of your first born (sarcasm) to make a profile. Facebook wants EVERYTHING!

      I’ve read articles about FB deleting profiles of people who use artistic names. Those people fought back but had to make whole new profiles since FB deleted their entire history. FB needs to be put in their place. I don’t care to keep hearing about them being a “private entity” that can do what they want. They don’t screen people for terrorist crimes or drug dealing via the Internet so why pick on us? Because parents cannot be parents? Tough sh*t! People need to be more mindful of who their kids are talking to.

      So basically you have have any other type of criminal record as long as it’s not a sex offense.
      I wonder – if Facebook were sued over this and got ordered to delete ANYONE with any type of criminal record, how much would FB’s user base drop? It would be nice to see it happen. Let everyone feel what it’s like to be ousted.

  • #42488 Reply
    Avatar
    Saddles

    Ah the facebook scenairo. Sandy you and maestro are going to get me in trouble. I got violated myself by being on facebook and believe it or not I wasn’t actually on facebook to evemn sign in to it. Sounds strange doesn’t it

    Brenda Jones had given me a contact to my Virginia NARSOL rep J.P Welch and he has got my story of this account in certain details to the event he even gave me some lawyers to check out if I needed one.
    Actually what had happen is during 2016 I wanted to do a little bit of telephone campaiging for Donald Trump. I was still in my depressed or oppressed mode a bit and thought this campaign for Trump was a good thing to do.

    I know one can call Donald Trump the best of the two evils but thats besides the point actually he’s a good man. At times one has to leave things up to truth when one campaign’s for someone. Believe it or not I had a good feeling that he would win.

    Things didn’t go to well as when the office say everybody had to sign up to do the telephone campaiging via facebook that cut things short. I went to the link to sign up or to see what it was all about but I really didn’t sign up. I had a lie detector test at the time and I mentioned that on the test that I was on facebook. That sort of made my PO upset. He even said I don’t care if you signed up or not you were on the page. My sister and I got into it that night and she wasn’t for Trump and after a little arguing I said, I bet you by the end of this campaign Trumps going to win.

    I went to court on this they didn’t really know what to do, I even had to speak up thru my court appointed lawyer. I tried everything I could do to talk to my PO to keep him from sending me back to court and he even said it will give you a chance to tell your whole story of why you got involved with this sex registry thing. They say timing is everything and I even told the public attorney they gave me and he said that wasn’t a good time to bring your whole ordeal up and I sort of agreed with the attorney that that wasn’t the right time as we were talking about a presidential election.

    As far as facebook goes I have no negives or positives about it if one watches themself to keep in check . Now Sandy at your discression you can post this as this is a true detail and the truth doesn’t hurt as I have nothing to be ashamed of about the president as we all do the best we can in life.

    • #42501 Reply
      Avatar
      Maestro

      Saddles,

      Sometimes the truth DOES hurt. Learn to be a better liar for those polygraphs. There’s no need for us to have to go through that nonsense anyway. It’s all propaganda and money making schemes.
      Take a relaxation pill before doing the polygraph and never EVER answer honestly on the questionnaire prior to taking the poly.
      Yes, I am advocating for lying to these brainless weasels. But only if you are not involved in continuous criminal activity.

  • #42530 Reply
    Avatar
    Saddles

    Actually you are right about lying and the truth does hurt if one lets it but see NARSOL is about Human Rights and change which is very interesting in this particular ordeal we all face. Srue some people want access to facebook. Even the President said In one of his speeches its so important in getting Justice. getting internet access. Yes I agree with your truth hurts but you see I didn’t tell a lie. Forgive me George Washington.

    Now I like to stand on principals and I’m sure we all do the best we can in that department. This outcry about the kids being taken away from there parents and this zero tolerance imigration thing is a bit too much. Sure I ‘m for forgivness as everybody that is human makes mistakes. We all can talk about lying or good and bad government or if it goes to far, than if it goes to far there is an outcry for true justice.. sure all these circumstances may be different but its the principal of the whole thing. Now their are good and bad qualities in every person but we are not to judge. One of the first president may have quoted this It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the bible” and yes some say that quote was attributed to him.

    I know Sandy’s gone start pullimg her hair out now and Maestro NARSOL is all about Human Rights and yes principal has a lot to do in this human drama The border crisis was one principal, are we not another principal or should we all be taken advanged of and I believe everyone on this NARSOL site would agree somewhat.

    • #42632 Reply
      Avatar
      Maestro

      “Actually you are right about lying and the truth does hurt if one lets it but see NARSOL is about Human Rights and change which is very interesting in this particular ordeal we all face.”

      Saddles,

      I don’t know what goes on in your mind but your comments are a lot of times incoherent.
      What does NARSOL have to do with a discussion about taking a polygraph and lying to save yourself from the inconvenience of being re-arrested and taken to court? Also, your use of the term “ordeal” is overwhelming.

  • #42721 Reply
    Avatar
    Steven VAN SCOTER

    Several states will provide Facebook with the emails that are required to be disclosed via SORA registration. I had for years been on Facebook under my real name. After a stay in Florida to help my mother after a stroke in which I did the lawful thing and registered, my account was disabled shortly after that.

  • #42722 Reply
    Avatar
    FRegistryTerrorists

    The answer is that governments simply should not be allowed to use any services which are not available to any citizen. Governments should not be allowed to use Facebook. Any that do should be sued.

    Also, all people who are listed on the $EX Offender Registries should have a Facebook account. It is trivial to do and it is the proper, moral thing to do.

Reply To: Victims’ advocate wants unlimited Facebook access — does that apply to all?
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links to other websites
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">

Printer Friendly Version Printer Friendly Version