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
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 🙂
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!!!
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.
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.
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 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.