Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or let dad go to work on them... The courts never get revenge to satisfy anyone.
Well... yeah?
I thought you fancied yourself a classical liberal? You also call yourself a philosopher. I find it shocking, with that in mind, that you've never read John Locke, who, paraphrase, literally gives this reason as why we have courts. Individuals would be too willing to allow revenge to guide their actions and that serious conflict cannot always be solved in this way, so we allow courts to be an impartial body to examine the issue and determine what is fair.
1) to obtain pornographic images of children, or
2) to identify potential future victims, or
3) to communicate with future victims
and the Supreme Court is giving sexual predators the Green Light to continue?
If the State can take away a felon's ability to own weapons, States can block sexual predators from Social Media. I'm not seeing any difference between the two.
From a practical standpoint, how would a convicted sex offender be precluded from accessing social media?
Easy enough to create fake accounts and use someone else's picture or no picture.
In Missouri, they usually deny them social media as a condition of parole. Just like on Halloween, they must keep porch lights turned off and there must be a sign on the door stating that the house does not participate in Halloween. The sheriff's dept checks all the houses. Get caught failing to register three times, mandatory 10 years. Can't live near a school, park or daycare center.
How would they know a parole had access to social media?
How does the state know who has social media accounts?
Libraries are full of people using library equipment to access social media.
The issue here has nothing to do with sex offenders.
The tough on crime crowd has successfully argued that we should give lengthy prison sentences to teach people a lesson. Naturally, when someone is faced with the possibility of spending a decade or more of their life in prison, they're going to fight it. This will lead to lengthy court battles, filled with constant appeals and pleading not guilty. To avoid the costs that would ensue as a result of this, prosecutors offer plea deals to the accused. This usually involves them simply admitting to the crime in exchange for only having to spend a few years in prison, at most.
The problem is more to do about having a rigid criminal justice system that thinks throwing people in underfunded prisons for decades at a time works. The courts don't want to make tax payers foot the bill for long battles, which are inevitable when the stakes are that high. I'd say bring prison sentences down overall, make prison about rehabilitation, and then we can just have a court system that does what it's supposed to do, sans plea deals.
In Missouri, they usually deny them social media as a condition of parole. Just like on Halloween, they must keep porch lights turned off and there must be a sign on the door stating that the house does not participate in Halloween. The sheriff's dept checks all the houses. Get caught failing to register three times, mandatory 10 years. Can't live near a school, park or daycare center.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
“In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” Kennedy’s ruling states. “It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted criminals – and in some instances especially convicted criminals – might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.”
First, this would not preclude sites like Facebook from banning them.
Second, they are wrong. We do have rights acknowledged in the Constitution. The Constitution also describes how those rights may be removed. They may be removed through due process. Convicted criminals have been afforded due process. There is no reason we can not make a ban a part of a sentence. We do it for voting. We can remove a right to vote but not for accessing a website?
Now, if one wants to argue that one should be able to seek out treatment and or certain requirements and prove that they have met those requirements to apply to have the restrictions removed, that's fine argue it. That isn't something the Supreme Court is suppose to address though.
Facebook and other social media does not run background checks on its users.
I walk into my local library and all my devices have automatic access to WIFI regardless of my intent to access the Internet or not.
This doesn't make sense to me. If a sex offender must register for life, and they are not allowed to live in certain areas or go certain places...why would the law allow them to enter a child's bedroom with no supervision? That's what social media is.
You may not physically be there at the time, but you can easily get yourself in to their space and start manipulating them. Has no one ever watched "To Catch A Predator"? That's how every last one of them did it...through social media.
How is this allowed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
...If the State can take away a felon's ability to own weapons, States can block sexual predators from Social Media. I'm not seeing any difference between the two.
Nailed it.
I would argue that this isn't even about "free speech". It's about where you are and are not allowed to go. Did they lose their "free speech" when the law said "You can't be within x feet/meters/miles of an elementary school"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
...I'm not sure why it's OK to limit their physical movements, but not their internet movements.
It's actually easier for them to find new "prey" on the internet. The guy in the story used a fake name on Facebook. No one knows who he is. He can easily get in to a child's head and start messing with him/her. And he can take all the time he wants to do it, because no one can "see" him, and no one knows who he is.
Hmm, interesting ruling, unanimous too. It's a ruling I suspect they'll have to revisit over the years.
Here in NY the court may assign one of the following three risk levels:
Level 1 (low risk of repeat offense), or
Level 2 (moderate risk of repeat offense), or
Level 3 (high risk of repeat offense and a threat to public safety exists).
On top of that the court also determines whether a sex offender should be designated a sexual predator, a sexually violent offender or a predicate sex offender.
Should a Level 3 sexual predator really be allowed access to Facebook? On the other hand, should a Level 1 be denied? It really gets convoluted and I don't think today's ruling helped.
This. Level 3s should be life parole until they can prove a lower risk.
How would they know a parole had access to social media?
How does the state know who has social media accounts?
Libraries are full of people using library equipment to access social media.
People turn them in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
