Well said. I am of the opinion that, instead of restricting access of those on the SOR, our society should instead restrict aof the minors. For one, parents should be the protectors of their children and not the government. Next, most of the Bill of Rights have been restricted to minors so why should the First Amendment be any different?

I have to agree with Robin. If you are not currently on parole or probation these social media laws have zero place in our society. Unlike the premise laws, which are God awful as well, if the social media laws get axed by the supreme court I don’t think there will be a mad dash to replace them. Mainly because it’s not something people come face to face with everyday(premise being more physical where social media is virtual) Also, these laws are little copied across the US. (Even Florida doesn’t impose restrictions as ridiculous as these) and it would be extremely difficult for them to wordsmith any effective ban on social media with a ruling in our favor.

Thank you for your interest and your comment. Our position is very simple. We don’t believe there is anything reasonable about restricting anyone’s access to social media (or any other platform for communication). Nor do we believe that law enforcement should ever be in a position to dole out rights in accordance with their assessment of this or that offender. That is to turn the citizen into a ward of the state. Registered citizens who are NOT on probation or parole deserve the exact same level of First Amendment protection as any other citizen. Robin

There should certainly be some degree of restrictions on the use of social media, but they certainly shouldn’t be as tight as they are. I would actually be in favor of a small committee or team that analyzes the social media sites and their policies, demographics, and means of communication, then creates an easily-accessible, regularly updated list of sites that are and are not permissible – or those that are permissible with qualifiers.

For example, YouTube again – make it permissible to upload videos, but not to post comments or directly communicate with other users. Have a penalty for violations. Instagram? Use it all you want, but if you are caught using it to solicit a minor, as unlikely as that is, automatic penalty of some sort. It doesn’t seem like a great difficulty to compile such a list.

Frankly, they should have been doing it all along. The law as it stands right now has a series of qualifiers to denote what does and does not constitute a commercial social networking site that permits minors as users, and they certainly could have paid someone to compile and maintain a spreadsheet that tells both offenders and sherriff’s departments what would be acceptable. As it is, the AG’s office tells the Sherriff’s Department, “use your best judgment”.

To their credit, the Sherriff’s Departments in some areas err on the side of leniency with offenders that have had a good track record, but sites that families and friends use to communicate, such as Twitter, Instagram, and others, remain off-limits entirely. And the idea that an offender might get different treatment based on what county they live in or even what Deputy is in charge of the SORU that year is, on its face, unfair.

Robin, I’m always excited to see what your efforts toward RSOL will bring, just be careful out there. We want sanity in our laws, but if we are not cautious with the litigation, knee-jerk reactions might result in things getting worse.