This topic contains 7 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Chuck 1 month, 1 week ago.
October 20, 2018 at 5:26 pm #48035
By John P . . . On June 19th, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that was read and noticed by a relatively small segment of
[See the full post at: The ruling that changed everything (and nothing at all)]
October 22, 2018 at 11:03 am #48044
The electronic lists have always had an intrinsic purpose other than public safety. The imposition of affirmative restraint. That particular aspect was ignored blatantly by Congress and later the court in favor of electronic convenience of database use. The people failed to convey acutely the relationship between machine and man inherent in the regime. Can humanity survive decisions that promote the idea of making man subservient to machine – even in any small way like SOR?. A man is paid to operate machines in free society.
October 30, 2018 at 6:03 pm #48397
“This case is one of the first this Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet. As a result, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium.”
Justice Kennedy, Majority Ruling Opinion, Packingham v. North Carolina, page 6
“Of importane, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court)”
Justice Kennedy, Majority Ruling Opinion, Packingham v. North Carolina, page 8
Great comments. Packingham is new ground and yet merely applies ancient principles of fairness to SO law. That and a subway token will get you a ride. Chuck is absolutely right there are no lawyers willing to fight to apply Packingham so to WC’s question, the state and her agents can do whatever the heck they want to do because there is no one on the other side to push back. Public opinion is, as always, against us and no judge wants to be the one who outlaws the registry or major aspects of it and/or probation. Yet, SCOTUS has spoken and if you were to win the lottery you would likely win significant freedoms if you sued. That being said, are we even allowed to play the lottery? Probably not…
October 22, 2018 at 9:51 pm #48061
The state of TN is contending that the dicta of Packingham leaves the prohibition in place for those like myself who are still under active state supervision. Is that so or did Packingham foreclose barring sex offenders from accessing social media across the board?
Isn’t Packingham law of the land now that SCOTUS has ruled it violates fundamental free speech? The First Amendment not only protects free expression, but also the right to receive information. Barring offenders from social media forecloses a huge forum for the exchanging of ideas and information.
Is Packingham v. North Carolina applicable to registered citizens subject to on-going state community supervision?
October 23, 2018 at 1:27 pm #48121
Like so many other incremental changes in the right direction, I regather my hope. And the call is always to advocate and fight. Yet, to date, even in the light of such positive change, no attorney seems to be willing to take on these causes, and like most S.O.’s I am underemployed and financially desperate all the time. So how might we fight when we are locked out of the system that is obviously driven by cash motives? The state will fight long, hard, and even dirty, and attorney’s charge and charge in response.
I have a great ex post facto claim on Colorado, according to one of your recent podcast guests, and this ruling seems to reinforce that I should be relieved of the added (lifetime) registration that was once only 10 years. But no one will take it on without a sufficient war chest to fund the fight. What can we do in reality that would help at all? Other than continue to cry out to a public that doesn’t want to hear it?
I have always tried to view my consequences as a social obligation, like paying taxes, but no other social obligation that I am aware of changes continuously and only in a negative direction, until there comes a time when any partially fair minded person has to admit that things are out of proportion. But there is scarcely and public outcry that is not one of the lepers or their family. So…what can/must we do? If not for NARSOL, no one would really know what we go through.
October 27, 2018 at 10:15 am #48287
Ed from Mars
While social is now legally open, Facebook can and will boot sex offenders off its program.
Also, as in my case, my counselor forbids access to Facebook and its affiliated apps.
This isn’t just when one us on supervision, but as long you’re required counseling. If you’re caught accessing it, you can, and likely, will released from her care and will need to get a new counselor.
October 31, 2018 at 3:24 pm #48450
@ Ed from Mars:
My counselor wanted me to sign a pledge not to use the internet at all last year; I refused. I told her depending on the extreme you want to take it, I could be in violation just for watching TV, using a cell phone, or my ATM card, all of which use the internet. She replied to just sign it and she wouldn’t make issue of things like that.
Again I refused. On top of the above, I also use the internet for news, fantasy football, and legal research regarding SO issues and probation terms, all of which is perfectly legal and proper. Also pointed out that the PO can search through my devices whenever they want. Again, she said just sign and we’ll deal with it case-by-case (side note: “Just sign and deal with it later” was beaten out of me by my idiot public defender). Again, no. Either spell out specifically what is allowed or what is not. I won’t leave room to misinterpret. Haven’t heard anything about it since.
Yes Facebook has a no-SO policy, but enforcing that is their problem, not the government’s. They’re not going to scrub 2 billion profiles every day/month/year to try to find those who may (or may not) be registrants. Some states have laws requiring registrants not on paper to register “identifiers” for that very reason. But I’ll bet those laws can be stricken easily enough, being another constraint or unreasonable search on registrants no longer under supervision.
November 5, 2018 at 6:21 pm #48628
Hi Dustin, In my very much “voluntary job because no one will hire me position” I use my professional training to coach porn addicts who wish to stop being under the control of a process addiction. This is the answer I would give your counselor, because it is reasonable and measured: “I would be happy to choose an accountability partner, whom you can meet, who can help me place filtering software on my devices to limit my access to those sites and apps that I need, but not those that would violate my terms of counseling or probation/parole. There are plenty of safeguards available that will help assure you, my accountability partner, the public, and myself that I am not misusing this vital tool to employment, information, and public connectivity.” If she cannot accept that, you have an ignorant and underskilled counslor, which, I am sad to say is about 85% or more of them. I can say that because it is my field and I am a doctoral level counselor-educator (out of work because of an RSO complaint by a vigilante).