Wednesday, June 21, 2017

For your Constitutional Edification, Sex Offenders and Going Online #Law

@Global Look Press

Note:  inexplicable picture provided with the source article.

A North Carolina law banning sex offenders from social media sites accessible by children is unconstitutional, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled.

Lester Gerard Packingham, a registered sex offender, was arrested under the law after posting on social media about defeating a traffic ticket. “No fine. No court costs. No nothing. Praise be to God. Wow. Thanks, Jesus,” he said in the post, according to the Associated Press.

Note:  when he's looking for God in traffic court, we see this one was probably damaged at the factory.

RT:  Barring sex offenders from social media unconstitutional – Supreme Court

Right now you're probably smoking and rightly so.  I tell you straight, if my kid were using Facebook and I knew this fellow was on there too, the whole posse would be out with shotguns hunting for him.

We know with drunkies and junkies, even if they really get through the program, they won't ever be cured since they can't ever touch those substances again but they know that and find / are taught ways to live their lives better without them.  Even with that knowledge, some still relapse.  With them it's a personal tragedy but with a sex offender it's a tragedy for my kid and I won't have it.

If there's any disagreement out there, I doubt it's much.  Part of the reason for writing the article is about the awareness since only North Carolina and Louisiana had law proscribing sex offenders from using online systems.  With those laws struck down, those states join the rest of the country in which it's legal already for sex offenders to use such systems.

Sure, you're smokin', but there's another consideration.

When we have the label sex offender spread as wide as it is now, we really don't know what sex offenders are anymore.  We have seen absurdity such as an 18-year-old sending a dick pic to his 17-year-old girlfriend and was prosecuted as a sex offender for it.  There are multiple examples of such things which make the definition far too loose when our concern is for the active predators who prey on small children.

In conclusion, dear ladies and gentlemen, we submit there's not much we can do to protest that law when we don't even really know what it means anymore.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Since a felon can have his 2nd amendment rights revoked, I dont see why a sex offenddr can not be limited also.
They can be limited in the reaworld to no unsupervised contact with minors.
I am assuming it is how vague the language of the law that is the problem.