Social media, NC legislature needlessly target RSOs

By Dwayne Daughtry . . . When it comes to sex offender restrictions, some legislatures have taken unusual steps to either ban registrants entirely from the internet or restrict access to various social platforms. Convicted sex offenders aren’t allowed to use Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat as per company policies. As Facebook acquires, monopolizes, and removes registrants from its platform, it will have attributed a significant increase in national unemployment numbers of registrants and their families because of inabilities to attain equal access to tools required for industry resources. Some may argue that “removal from the registry will restore accesses to social media because requirements are no longer applicable.” However, Facebook and other company policies that align with banning sex registrants from its platforms are permanent and not subject to state or federal laws and guidelines. This argument extends to juveniles released from sex offender requirements and those pardoned, expunged, or sealed by judicial systems. Facebook policy is vividly clear that a news article is enough incrimination to remove an individual.

The war on sex offenders and compliance requirements is an easy sell by politicians, victim organizations, and community groups. When it comes to crime legislation, there always appears to be a contemptuous way to identify sex registrants in neighborhoods and suburbs quickly. Police resources are no longer able to target meth labs, organized crime networks, or child victims of disturbing home abuses. Its officer priorities are socially motivated and influenced by social media and civic craze. There will always be highly charged rhetoric about stopping opioids and other drugs flowing into neighborhoods and accessible to youth. But registrants are always falsely portrayed as a number one priority in ensuring they are the most surveilled and the highest threat to society.

The State of North Carolina recently passed Senate Bill 199 named Child Sex Abuse/Strengthen Laws. The bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. However, the bill criminalizes citizens and organizations who fail to immediately report a suspicion that a juvenile is or could be abused (§ 14-318.6). The bill directs any person who suspects or witnesses an act where a child could be at risk for physical injury to be identified and notify  law enforcement immediately. That’s right. There are no anonymity provisions for those who initiate reporting to authorities. Witnesses are required to provide full name, address, and telephone number. Therefore, if at a local big box store an individual witnesses a spanking of a child, then it’s either the responsibility of the store or the witness to contact law enforcement immediately because of the suspicion rule mentioned in the bill. While the bill is attempting to target dangerous conditions, its ambiguous wording allows an opening for many scenarios to be weaponized either by law enforcement or people. Essentially the bill, if it becomes law, will arm businesses and people to act on suspicion or else it may criminalize those that fail to become involved if that is discovered during an ongoing investigation. It creates an attack on the Good Faith law.

In part three of the bill, § 15-1, it increases the statutes of limitations from two years to ten years for misdemeanor crimes against children. This is where the law, while intended to target serious offenses, becomes diluted to include adults who feel or believe they were physically abused or felt in danger as a child at the time to prosecute family members, coaches, educators, bullies, former friends, or anyone accused of abuse. This portion of the bill generates a possibility for the defense to exploit an emotionally filled victim impact statement long after defendants are able to produce or contribute plausible exculpatory evidence. The amendment provision appears to be driven by social media and external influencers to align with the popularity of timetable expansions for statutes of limitations in an ex post facto situation. There is no proof or data to suggest an urgency to amend this part of the law by citizens of North Carolina.

Part Four, § 14-202.5, bizarrely named Protecting Children Online From High-Risk Sex Offenders is perhaps the most negligently researched bill introduced in the history of North Carolina legislative cataloging. The bill mentions High-Risk sex offenders, who are not a classification to be found within North Carolina law. (§ 14-208.6 Definitions of Offender Types). According to the bill, High-Risk offender is convicted those found guilty of sex with a minor. Should the bill become law, that would include nearly 87% of the over 17,840 registrants on the North Carolina registry.

Part Four also includes provisions that would prohibit high-risk offenders from contact with a person believed to be under the age of 16. There are several dilemmas about that particular part of the bill in direct conflict with current North Carolina law. First, there are several laws on the books covering contact with a minor for exploitative purposes (§ 14-190.13). However, those particular laws clearly state that a minor is anyone under the age of 18. Additionally, it says, “Mistake of age is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.” Therefore, has the state erroneously created conflict with taking indecent liberties with children (§ 14-202.1), “immoral, improper, or indecent liberties,” by attempting to distinguish two separate ages as a minor, creating an opening for legal challenges?

Read the remainder of Dwayne’s piece here at Subjective Belief.


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


This topic contains 6 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Avatar Ed 1 day, 2 hours ago.

  • Author
  • #54513 Reply

    By Dwayne Daughtry . . . When it comes to sex offender restrictions, some legislatures have taken unusual steps to either ban registrants entirely fro
    [See the full post at: Social media, NC legislature needlessly target RSOs]

  • #54516 Reply
    Forrest Skaine

    It is my understanding that Facebook reversed their discriminatory policy 2 years ago for SO’s.

    • #54532 Reply
      Sandy Rozek
      Sandy Rozek

      No, Facebook has not reversed its policy. The Packingham case in NC, taken all the way to the Supreme Court, resulted in a finding that it was unconstitutional for state registry requirements to exclude those on the registry from access to social and other online media platforms, but Facebook is a privately owned company. It sets its own policies, and so far it is continuing its policy of discrimination and removing the accounts of registrants whenever it identifies them.

      NARSOL sent a letter to the CEO of Facebook after the Packingham decision —
      and earlier this year Jason, one of NARSOL’s original authors, wrote this:

  • #54517 Reply

    Robin initially brought this bill to my attention a month or so ago. I wrote 2 different emails on 2 seperate instances to all 50 or so senators to urge the legislators to use reason and actual fact and not “common sense” or the feels right mentality. I also attempted phone contact,but was largely unsuccessful. I too noticed the age of 16 in this bill versus the definition of sex crimes with minors under current nc law which references those under 18 years old. Very, very confusing.

    The IP address requirement in this bill is one of the more outlandish things I have ever seen. If this actually makes it into law, I am going to enjoy going to the sheriff’s office with a wheel barrel of IP addresses. Between all the free wi fi places across our county and vpn networks I should have no problem providing about 100,000 IP addresses. If I really wanted to I could probably push 1,000,000. Could you imagine having to log 1 million IP addresses?

    • #54558 Reply

      It dawned on me the ban doesnt just encompass facebook, instagram, and snapchat in part 5 below, but covers sites like eharmony and any other adult dating site that bans rc`s punishable as a class H felony . I find it ironic they make it a crime to those with underage convictions from many adult dating sites…

      (5) To use a commercial social networking Web site in violation of a policy
      posted in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of users,
      prohibiting convicted sex offenders from using the site.
      (e) Punishment. – A violation of this section is a Class H felony. (was class I, but was increased to and H in the second revision)

      Lastly, I wanted to point out the jurisdiction part below. Seems to me it doesnt matter what state you are in to NC, they can still come after you. I am willing to bet it doesnt even matter if you were in direct contact with someone underage in NC for any reason because sites like facebook disseminate your info 24/7 all over the world and that could be considered transmitting.

      Jurisdiction. – The offense is committed in the State for purposes of determining jurisdiction, if the transmission that constitutes the offense either originates in the State or is received in the State.

  • #54571 Reply
    Ed C

    This legislation illustrates that politicians are not elected for being smart or rational on crime and public safety. If it weren’t so tragic, ineffective and contrary to public interest, it would be funny. On the “upside”, the legislation is an effective full employment program for the lawyers who will be needed to litigate this constitutional minefield.

  • #54633 Reply

    How in the hell can anyone provide a dynamic ip that changes on an hourly basis? Every SO in the county shows up twice every 7 days with stacks of paper? For the less-savvy, who from the sheriff’s dept is going to offer tech support and training?

    What is the house companion bill? Surely this won’t pass intact. Does law enforcement even know about this? There is no way they can even handle the ramifications.

  • #54643 Reply

    Passing unconstitutional laws without receiving undesirable consequences is the only problem I see here. If undesirable consequences were experienced even 1/2 of the magnitude of the pain and suffering these laws inflict, there would be no registry. We must find a way for the law makers, and their constituents to regret their decision to trample on the constitutional rights of others, and do so without breaking laws in the process. In short we have to follow the rules they do not. Tell me who is the criminal here?

Reply To: Social media, NC legislature needlessly target RSOs
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 or email addresses..
  • *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="">