An U.S. Appeals Court decided today that everyone in the United States should be allowed to use social media despite what they may have done in their past, even if that past includes sexual offenses. The 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Chicago made the declaration in response to a case launched by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana to an Indiana state law that restricted access to sites like Facebook and Twitter in order to protect children from receiving sexually explicit messages.
The Indiana branch of the ACLU filed a class action suit against the law on behalf of an unidentified man who had served three years for child exploitation, as well as other known sex offenders who were affected by the ban despite no longer being on probation. However, last June, U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton sided with the Indiana authorities, saying in her ruling that the state was simply working to protect children online and noting that social networks were essentially a “virtual playground for sexual predators to lurk [in].” The rest of the Internet, she pointed out, was unaffected by the state’s ban, and available to sex offenders.
That outlook didn’t sit well with the 7th Circuit judges, who unanimously voted to overturn the earlier decision and issued a 20-page ruling on the subject. That ruling noted in part that the Indiana law “broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather than specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors,” adding that “the goal of deterrence does not license the state to restrict far more speech than necessary to target the prospective harm.” It continues, “Regulations that do not implicate the First Amendment are reviewed only for a rational basis. The Constitution even permits civil commitment under certain conditions. But laws that implicate the First Amendment require narrow tailoring. Subsequent Indiana statutes may well meet this requirement, but the blanket ban on social media in this case regrettably does not.”
This ruling shouldn’t come as a complete surprise; attempts to create similar barriers to social media in Nebraska and Louisiana have also been struck down by Federal judges in the last year (leading to Louisiana passing a law that required all known sex offenders to identify themselves as such on social media sites, instead).
Responding to the ruling, ACLU legal director Ken Falk said that the Indiana authorities’ decision to add this law five years ago was unnecessary in the first place. “Indiana already has a law on the books that prohibits inappropriate sexual contacts with children,” he said. “This law sought to criminalize completely innocent conduct that has nothing to do with children.” Indiana’s Attorney General, Greg Zoeller, has said that his office will review the new ruling before deciding on what to do next.
so in other words watch out who your communicating with because it could be a sex offender, nice real nice. something else to worry about.
Yeah right they should of thought about that before they chose to mess with children and anyone who agrees they should have access to fb are SICK and probably are sex offenders theirselves
Why even waste so much time in something so pointless they should spend a lot less time and money and just spend 35 cents on a bullet and be done with it.
NICE INFO BUT DECEPTION…THERES IMPORTANT STUF THAT SHOULD BE ADRESSED
this is just wrong!!!!!
Man some sh*t isnt abuse to me if the girl 16 and the dude 17 or if the girl lie about age to sleep with a dude..the dude shouldnt go to jail cause she wanna be a young h*e and child abusers real ones should die
If your over 18 and ur trying to mes with 16 and under you should be raped in jail
hey, are u know selena gomez?
are u selenator?
Go like https://www.facebook.com/selenagomezweareloveyou
How about before they get to know your kids online?
Pure bull :poop:
everyone make mistake doesnt mean all sex offenders are bad people. sometimes the people who dont have a pass is more danderous that the people with a pass. most people learn from their mistakes and we need to stop judging each other before getting to know each other
Then, telling them that they can not live near children is against their rights, too….. Come on… They gave up their rights the day they became abusers…
why dont they just give them an old beat up van, and candy! maybe a background check on the appeals court members should be required
I just forward you an email , it’s a good website called FaceCrooks.
That’s not good because I think it’s just an easier way to prey.
This is bogus, I will get you the link.