GREAT NEWS!!!! SCOTUS rules for Packingham.
State cannot block access to Social Media !!!
More to come.
Here is the order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
Florida Action Committee
With Unity Comes Change
With Unity Comes Change
State cannot block access to Social Media !!!
More to come.
Here is the order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
Awesome!! A win in the supreme court for RSO.. The wall is finally begins to crumble!
Does this mean they can’t ban the internet?
It means they can’t ban Social Media.
NOTE: ALL THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROBATION. PROBATION CAN STILL BAN SOCIAL MEDIA, THE INTERNET, ETC.
Wall are built one brick at a time and they come down the same way.
Of course with every “brick” removed the wall becomes weaker and weaker.
I think that now that the general public has the concept of “fake news” that it is easier for the truth to be seen. Now what we need to do is to continue the education and keep removing those bricks until the wall is gone or at least lowered to allow some of us to climb over it!
FANTASTIC !!!!
Next up: Ex Post Facto violation of the states via SORNA aka Ada, Walsh Act.
The ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ is not a locomotive…thank God! Common sense and reality is finally entering the picture.
Yes, Yes, Yes!!! Let it begin… hopefully the rest of the cases Supreme court have faces the same results. From registry to residence restrictions. Let it all crumble.
“It is well established that, as a general rule, the Gov-ernment “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coali-tion, 535 U. S., at 255”
hopefully, this statement that was in the opinion can be used where states created laws requiring SO to provide user names, etc… as anonymous free speech is protected.
Yup indeed.
1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections.
“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation at the hands of an intolerant society.”
Just finished a study of the Constitution. Well said!
I was not aware of this case. Thank you.
The politicians of Florida need to be made aware of this case before this next legislation session.
They need to be educated and reminded of what the law ACTUALLY says before they sit down and try to destroy more of our lives.
For those of you who did not read the complete ruling…Judge Alito used the same debunked verbage that alludes of a very high recidivism rate.
I read the entire thing and Alito is an idiot. Needs to be kicked out of that judiciary with the quickness. He probably concurred, so he won’t look like the awkward ugly duckling left out, but couldn’t help himself by adding additional unnecessary opinions which in turn, made himself look ridiculous regardless.
Alito is a horse’s A$$. He is more than likely peeved that he did not get to be Chief Justice. He was considered for it, but Bush “W” chose Roberts for payment on the work he did on Smith v Doe 2003.
One of the best parts of the opinions.
Statement made by Justice Kennedy: “Of importance, 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.”
That is a huge statement and he calls it a ” troubling fact “. Seems like the majority of SCOTUS justices don’t like post probation ” severe restrictions ” aka punishments. That statement alone can put some serious major jabs on the sex offender industry scheme.
Exactly, this whole issue and mess deals with post-probation when a person is no longer carrying out a sentence. I can fully understand if the person is under parole or probation serving out a sentence, but once a person finishes a court ordered sentence, they should no longer be under any restriction whatsoever and at the hands of the government and move on with building a law abiding fruitful life like any other person. Fully restored rights, liberty and happiness. That, is truly American.
Debbie, the Justices sent a letter to Sessions asking why SORNA is not e post facto. They didn’t include a date for response. So the idea of ex post facto did occur to them
For being called florida action committee I read most of the time its some other state. When will the fight come to florida? When will challenges and wins in other states be proposed here?
Paul – we currently have several lawsuits going on.
We have our own Internet lawsuit going on currently.
And now that Packingham has been decided by SCOTUS, I bet the Judge will give us a decision soon. The Internet Identifier is a first amendment issue as well and Packingham will more than likely be cited in his decision.
Florida is not easy Paul. Modern sex offender laws were pretty much born in Florida – a highly conservative religious right state with its state capital well within the bible belt region. More wins outside of Florida at the Federal level can prepare us for a much more solid fight when the time comes.
FAC is constantly on top of things and we should all be grateful to have their support , network, resources and connections which year by year is getting much stronger. If it isn’t FAC, then who else?
Thank you FAC and company for not giving up on our fight.
Question now that this ruling is complete:
If I am reading this ruling correctly, and I am remembering general legality when it comes to business practices, etc…. Does this ruling thus state that a publicly traded company like Facebook can now no longer ban a member of FB? I ask this because in their TOS it states you cannot join FB if you are a registered sex offender. My FB account was blocked and then closed back in February and I was told that I was no longer allowed to have a FB account because I was a registered sex offender.
No. The decision has no bearing on Facebook.
I think what Bill is eluding to is something many people have brought up in the last few years (and note I am not a lawyer or a savvy business person) – Facebook changed a while back from a private entity to a publicly traded company. When it did that (the way I understand it) their are several federal guidelines that those companies have to follow. Without the backing of a law or LE they really do not have the right to ban certain people from using their product. In the discussions I have seen many people brought up that RSOs are not a protected class – but from what I understand it is not just about being a protected class. It will be interesting to see whether with the backing of SCOTUS that social media cannot be banned whether those publicly traded social media sites change the guidelines.
Facebook is not only publicly traded, but if you want to blog or communicate and express yourself in the internet, you need a Facebook account to log in. Pretty much in about 90% of the internet where ” talking and expressing your opinions is a factor, including news media outlet sites. I can’t give my opinion in an article from a news media site without a Facebook account. They are hindering my first amendment right to an opinion on an online article published by the press.
Valid point PJ
Karen and PJ are expressing what I was curious about. As they are no longer a privately owned company, they have to follow the rules of law. i.e. equal treatment for all, and not allowed to “deny service” to a person selectively. I am hoping that the next step for many of us who have had their FB account removed is a class action suit against FB to reinstate our account/rights to an account.
Wow lots of good stuff in that decision!
“A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that
all persons have access to places where they can speak
and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once
more. The Court has sought to protect the right to speak
in this spatial context. A basic rule, for example, is that a
street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise
of First Amendment rights. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism
, 491 U. S. 781, 796 (1989).”
They are saying that to ban someone from a Park is unconstitutional and protected as an avenue for Free Speech!!!
I listen to some Supreme cases via ” puppy justice ” on Youtube. It gives it a more comical tune to it. They do every Supreme court case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pU6qGfSWT8
*This is Packinham for those who want to here Oral arguments. It also includes caption titles as well.
LMAO it was good link 🙂
What about Facebook ? Practically every corner of the internet where you are able to blog and speak an opinion requires a Facebook account. They are “publicly” traded and hooked linked to almost every site (id say about 90%) where you are able to leave a comment, opinion and everything talking. Even more so, the news media sites. They hinder my first amendment right to leaving an opinion on an article that was published by the free press news sites. Anonymity is also protected by the U.S constitution and Bill of Rights to protect an unpopular individual from the lynch mob majority in our society.
In retrospect, this was a hollow “victory.” Corporations are given unbridled authority to regulate and enforce restrictions on social media to deny freedom of speech to registrants. Until the federal government removes that authority, which they never will, we remain a sub-class of citizens.
Had Packingham lost, states would have been emboldened to do what NC had done, ie, ban registrants from social media sites and more. Instead, we have, for example, thousands of registrants on Twitter, sharing ideas about registries, raising awareness, and getting a little escape from social isolation, with no resulting threat to public safety.
It’s true that Facebook had already been banning registrants from their own site, but Packingham was never about that, a common misconception about this case.