NARSOL Press Release: Supreme Court Arguments Monday

Viewing 20 reply threads
  • Author
    • #8317 Reply

       FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE . . . Contact: Sandy Rozek; 888.997.7765  Supreme Court set to hear oral argument on Monday  Do
      [See the full post at: NARSOL Press Release: Supreme Court Arguments Monday]

    • #8318 Reply

      if the state truly is so very worried about possible ‘future’ harm happening to someone by a previously convicted person???
      why do they allow those previously convicted of DUI or DWI where injury, harm or death happened to regain or get new drivers licenses?
      why do they allow those who have been previously convicted of robbery where injury, harm or death happened to enter stores?
      an ‘offender’ is someone who commits an illegal act, period. why single out sex ‘offenders’?????

    • #8319 Reply
      Tod Siegel

      Wish you all good luck and hope you win this case!!

    • #8320 Reply
      John W

      Can anyone explain why the Supreme Court will only decide on one question?

      Certainly the people that are suppose to be the brightest legal minds of our country have the brain power to deal with more than one question at a time. Freedom of speech? Really? I’m just a mere mortal, but I can think of a host of questions that could show all kinds of constitutional violations by laws such as this Facebook law, or any law, that takes so many different people, with so many different levels of crimes and/or accusations, from a mistake in judgement to the most vile, sexual or non-sexual, over a 40 year period of time and dump them all into one basket, for the rest of their lives, with no way to amend, redress, atone, or to simply move forward in their life.

      I can list pages of questions but it’s a waste of time. People who don’t understand have already stopped reading and the ones that get it, already know the questions.

    • #8321 Reply

      John, the Supreme Court can only address the issue that is brought before it. If this case is being brought on the grounds of a First Amendment violation, then that is all they are able to respond to.

    • #8322 Reply

      Sua sponte. Decide the bigger issues and stop prolonging an unconstitutional laws.
      And for God’s sake, stop with the friggin’ “show me all the street signs” bullshit.

    • #8323 Reply
      John W

      Actually, I do know that. I can only imagine how quickly our society would collapse if every law that was written, had to have three branches of government practice the futile exercise of answering every conceivable question.

      I guess I’m just having a hard time with the almost 20 years of “piling on” of new laws and knowing in my mind what the “real” reasons are for them. When I read the argument by N.C. for their Facebook law, I’m sitting there with my mouth hanging open, looking like I’m going to be sick. It was like reading a bunch of words that were randomly put together with the hope that they could find someone who had zero knowledge of how Facebook works and then agree with their unsubstantiated reasoning. Well, it looks they found them.

      In my opinion, I can’t think of a better way to monitor a persons attitude, behavior, belief system, and political affiliation apart from what they reveal of themselves with pictures and message posting on Facebook. Why do you think college graduates are advised to delete their Facebook accounts before they go job-hunting?

    • #8324 Reply


      What difference would it really make if the Court decided to stop charging people with a felony for using Facebook?
      Facebook already has a rule in place that bars SO’s from using their site.
      Sometimes it takes them a week or more to find us, but so long as we use our REAL names and Photos on Facebook, our accounts will be deleted immediately.
      It happened to me TWICE on FB. The first FB account I had lasted 4 years. Then, our former (idiot jackass) Attny Gen, DICKhead Blumenthal FORCED Facebook, MySpace and other sites to match names and faces to the SOR.

      In you battle with the courts for first amendment rights, you should probably also challenge Facebook as well as “Mr Head Up His Own Political Ass” Blumenthal and throw it in their faces that most all the incidents where adults met minors online were adults with NO PRIOR sex offense record.

      There’s more to the “powers that be” than you may realize. Facebook is one of those powers. Deal with them asap, please.

    • #8325 Reply

      It’s important to recall that the Packingham case is not NARSOL’s case. Packingham is a criminal defendant who has exercised his appellate rights from conviction in a NC Superior Court up through the available courts of appeal throughout. His opportunity to petition the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari was taken after a final disposition against him at the NC Supreme Court level. Out of the 18,000 or so petitions the U.S. Supreme Court receives each year, Packingham was exceedingly fortunate to be selected among the 80 or so petitions that the high Court actually agrees to hear. The only participation in this case for NARSOL (along with NCRSOL) is the filing of a “friend of the court” brief in support of the petitioner (something that only occurs after a petition has been granted).

      Facebook does, indeed, restrict registered sex offenders from membership as a consequence of an agreement made between Facebook (and a number of other social media forums) and a group of state attorneys general led by then New York AG Andrew Cuomo back in 2009. Facebook was more-or-less forced to agree to this policy under threat of serious legal action. Facebook caved. And it would require a different sort of legal argument to force Facebook to change its policy against allowing registered sex offenders to become members. That legal road map has not yet evolved.

    • #8326 Reply
      Just a few thoughts….

      The common thread is the ability to contact minors, those 17 and under, who are permitted to have FB accounts. If it were to contact other consenting adults only or an adult only website, 18 yrs at a minimum, then this would be a non-issue.

      However, because every private entity online does not validate the individual and their age who is accessing their online presence, anyone, as we have all seen, can portray themselves to be someone else and skirt the rules. The actual online entity is irrelevant, e.g. New York Times, Food Network, FB, My Space, etc, because in a digital world, anyone can access anything. Terms of Service conditions are cover your butt items required because of the stupidity of a few (e.g. frivolous lawsuits) and really don’t work overall. Society encourages full interaction among its people regardless of age, so whether you are 14 acting 18 or older or 30 acting 15, no one will really know who is on the other end. Until online entities actually can prove who the people are signing up and their intentions, really trying to stop certain people from being on your online presence is a futile effort.

      Trying to stop free expression as guaranteed in our Constitution using caveats is stupid political motion. Overturn Packingham!

    • #8327 Reply

      The real question b4 SCOTUS is “May I let my children play in the street?”

      LOL, really!

    • #8328 Reply

      Since Packingham is the petitioner and N.C. the defendant, I believe, based on most of what you say, that you mean “Uphold Packingham; overturn the N.C. law.”
      Correct me if I am wrong.

    • #8329 Reply
      Oops, got it reversed….my bad

      You are correct, Sandy. Uphold Packingham, overturn NC law.

    • #8330 Reply

      haha. Forgive me, but you’re both wrong. We don’t want the Court to “uphold” Packingham since, by doing so, that would mean that it agrees with the outcome below (NC Sup Ct). We want them to overturn Packingham….or you might also say reverse. The confusion may stem from the relationship of the person, Packingham, and the case, Packingham. Separate the man from the case, and it may follow more logically. It’s outcomes (cases) that matter most. Right now, the most recent outcome in Packingham is NOT what we desire. Therefore, it is NOT what we want upheld.

    • #8331 Reply
      Just delete my two comments to avoid further confusion

      Heck, just delete my two comments (the initial one here and the oops follow up) to avoid any further comments.

      I do want Packingham overturned or reversed, but now it appears to be just more confusing with the thread.

    • #8332 Reply

      Thanks, rwvnral; that’s what happens when someone who can’t read a legal decision without her eyes rolling back in her head — me –tries to comment on legal issues. Let’s leave your comments, Just a few thoughts; I’ve learned something and therefore others might also. And you were right to begin with.

    • #8333 Reply

      Yes, the so laws are “feel good” laws that do little to nothing to prevent sex-related offenses. They win political points for many politician. Not much else.

    • #8334 Reply
      James Townsend

      People I didn’t want to comment on this thread but since you all seem so worried, I wondered who said “there is noting to fear but fear itself” or the saying “erase the hate”.

      See I don’t want to be wise or the great philosophy thinker on here because I don’t have a brain like some.

      Now I will be going to trail on Tuesday on an issue similar to this one. I couldn’t care less about face book, mind space or whatever its called or any of those things like twitter or The Twilight Zone or interacting with others if that’s the case. I think you all just want to be intimidated by all this.

      Remember you can’t start a fire without a spark but than you should know how to put out a fire when it starts.

      Aside from the issue about the internet one has to remember how they got involved in all this to start with? One has to say can man actually take all of our rights away, can man shove a piece of paper right in front of you and make you sigh it or if you don’t that is contempt. Can man drain your bank account to pay off your fines and other charges? When you as thinkers can come up with the answer you let me know.

      Sometimes I wonder if a person can’t change their socks with a manual to tell them how to do it.

    • #8335 Reply

      Maestro, I am an RSO with my real name and my ugly mug in the profile picture for about 3 years or so now and have yet to have a problem. I don’t talk about my status at all on Facebook though and many of my “friends” are completely unaware. On the other hand, Derek Logue of actually has a Facebook page that has not been removed yet to my knowledge and he talks about the registry and his association with it often.

      I’m only saying this because it appears that your situation is rather unusual. I do remember previous comments by you on this forum about being on parole/probation and complaining about that though. Do you think that may have been something to do with that?

    • #8336 Reply


      If my issue with Facebook deleting 2 of my accounts had anything to do with Probation, I’d have been under violation.
      No one “turned me in” and the 2nd profile I made had no friends on it. I did it as a test page. It was up for a couple of weeks until I posted my pic, then, about 48 hours later *poof* gone!

      My first FB page was up for approx 4 yrs and man I’m pissed that it was deleted. Lots of fond memories were shared on there and I was also a part of some of the classic horror movie collector groups where I ended up selling a very rare movie that’s only ever been released in Japan on VHS for a whopping $500!!! And that was the price the guy offered to me. I didn’t really want to sell it since I’ll likely never be able to find another one again all these years after the death of VHS.

      Man, I was piiiiiiiissssed.
      It happened AFTER the states AG’s cracked down on FB to get RSO’s off the site. They must certainly have some type of facial recognition software.
      If you haven’t been “caught” by the FB safety team yet, eventually you might be. And it’s a pain in the butt when you lose all your stuff that’s posted there.

    • #8337 Reply

      It sounds like your situation coincided with the crackdown then and may also be attributed to your state. Maybe i created my account well after the hysteria of that died down, I’m not sure. I’ve been put in what’s called “Facebook jail” and still kept my account though. I will be ready to sue them from a business standpoint if they do though because I use fb pages and advertising for my business.

Viewing 20 reply threads
Reply To: NARSOL Press Release: Supreme Court Arguments Monday
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *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.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *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 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 class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">