Back

ABA Journal

Home

Internet Law

Facebook ban for sex offenders is overturned by 7th Circuit

Jan 24, 2013, 09:18 am CDT

Comments

Mr. Falk, please give some thought to your statements before making them.  The Pope is at the top of what some consider to be the most widespread pedophilia coverup in history.  You’re not going to garner much sympathy for the argument that a convicted sex offender ought to be permitted to report back to headquarters on social media.

By Bad Example? on 2013 01 30, 9:28 am CDT

No one should be given a false sense of security by believing that sex offenders are “banned” from any website.  First, there are a lot of sex offenders that have not yet been convicted of anything, and would not be “banned.”.  second, convicted sex offenders can hardly be relied upon to comply with such a ban.  So, the safest status for everyone is to operate on the assumption that Facebook and other social websites are overrun with sex offenders..

By judgejj on 2013 01 30, 9:34 am CDT

Altho I would consider it appropriate to ban sex offenders from social media, I would also be niave to think that a mere ban would keep them away. This falls in line with my wish that people would not shoot other people, but the gun (like social media) is not at fault. I’m in aggreement with “judgejj” that your assumption should be there are always bad folks out there ready to exploit you and do you harm.

By hownagy on 2013 01 30, 10:28 am CDT

Did this comment section get raided by 24 hour news station watchers?

Are we really to the point where people view most others as potentially dangerous criminals? Seems like an awfully isolating and insular worldview to have. Thanks, Nancy Grace and your ilk, for doing your part to turn Americans (and Britons) into fearful, naive jerks.

Pedophiles should be punished and kept away from children (i.e. they should be in jail if they’re an actual threat). To deny access to social media to people that aren’t in jail or subject to a court order denying such activity is absolutely a prohibition on speech. Why is such a wide net needed? Are people on the receiving end of chats from pedophiles that dumb? Where’s the responsibility of parents and teenagers? Hey, everyone, maybe it’s a bad idea to meet people from the internet. 

It’s sad to see so many people buying into the hyped up sensationalist pedophile mania. Are there dangerous people out there? Yes. Should children be protected? Yes. At the cost of casting a wide net so that people are prohibited from social media (something most people take for granted)? No. Don’t give me that “if just one child is protected then it was worth it” tripe either. If fifty people had to have their vocal chords removed so that one person could be saved, I’d hardly call that fair. Now, I’m being dramatic, but it’s early here and I haven’t had my coffee.

By Jesquire on 2013 01 30, 10:45 am CDT

first the link to the case is bad—the article is uninformative, but the decision probably is worth reading!

second, why not ban them from using the telephone? speaking at a meeting of the school board? voting? talking to people? writing a letter to the editor? using snail mail to send personal messages to people they know?

All these activities bring them into contact with people who may introduce them to kids.

By jfw on 2013 01 30, 12:43 pm CDT

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.