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.
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.
On the one hand, there is the free speech issue. I take that very seriously.
OTOH, some of these perps get to wear ankle bracelets as a condition of parole, for darn good reasons. I'm not sure why it's OK to limit their physical movements, but not their internet movements.
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.
Let me get this straight...
Many sexual predators use Social Media
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.
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.
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.
The only way you can legally deny liberty to any individual, is to lock them up, or kill them....
“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.
I think I agree with this. Generally speaking, it's better for all of us that those released from prison are severely restricted from enjoying the spoils of a free society. If you severely limit where they can live, what they can do, where they can work, and how they can communicate, they're more likely to be bored and if you have a history of raping people, boredom might be kind of dangerous for the rest of us.
Also, if I'm understanding this right, it's saying the courts can't restrict social media use, but the companies that run these sites still could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist
That is what should be done to child sex offenders.
Well, you're in luck. That's what they do. I've never heard of a child molester just getting community service.
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.
