<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: SCOTUS slaps NC Supreme Court, unanimously strikes social media ban	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://ncrsol.org/2017/06/scotus-slaps-nc-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-social-media-ban/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://ncrsol.org/2017/06/scotus-slaps-nc-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-social-media-ban/</link>
	<description>Fighting for registered citizens and families</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 16:05:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: JohnDoeNC		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2017/06/scotus-slaps-nc-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-social-media-ban/#comment-86</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnDoeNC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ncrsol.org/?p=659#comment-86</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Well I hate to throw a wet blanket on this party but. 

We were all elated when the decision was handed down in &lt;em&gt;Does v Cooper&lt;/em&gt;. Then Buck Newton led the charge to just draft and pass another law that was essentially the exact same law. The real problem as I see it was they used the language in &lt;em&gt;Does v Cooper&lt;/em&gt; to craft the new law based on the opinions offered by the judges in an effort to make it fit the opinion of the court. Essentially bypassing or skirting the actual issue of the complete unconstitutionality of the NC SOR premise restrictions in general. If we win the latest suit moving through the courts in NC, what will stop another legislator from drafting another bill. They will draft legislation that fits or removes only the part of the law the judges find unconstitutional. 

Don&#039;t get me wrong I am pleased with the SCOTUS decision only because it shows SCOTUS finally found an SOR law unconstitutional. Simply because it WAS OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional. This doesn&#039;t mean that someone in the NC House will not simply draft another bill with similar and possibly even stronger language tailored to the courts and in line with what justice alito, roberts, and thomas stated. 

This is not a sprint it&#039;s a marathon. At least in NC it appears we will be constantly fighting the decisions and rewrite of the exact same laws until somone IN THE NC HOUSE or their constituents say enough is enough.  

The fight needs to and must be waged in the courts. But the main battle ground is in the court of public opinion. Court decisions may be the beginning of changing the public perception of sex offenders. But I&#039;m not going to hold my breath. Don&#039;t get me wrong I would rather be legally protected than accepted. 

I am a child of the 50&#039;s and I grew up in the deep south. When I was in elementary school, integration was met with what we first called token integration. I had two African-American kids in my entire elementary school. It wasn&#039;t until I was in high school I saw real desegregation. That was in 1972. &lt;em&gt;Brown v Board of Education&lt;/em&gt; was handed down in 1954. 

It wasn&#039;t until America saw the firehoses and dogs in Alabama on TV that pubic opinion was changed on civil rights for most Americans. 

But! This was still a tremendous victory for SO&#039;s in the courts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well I hate to throw a wet blanket on this party but. </p>
<p>We were all elated when the decision was handed down in <em>Does v Cooper</em>. Then Buck Newton led the charge to just draft and pass another law that was essentially the exact same law. The real problem as I see it was they used the language in <em>Does v Cooper</em> to craft the new law based on the opinions offered by the judges in an effort to make it fit the opinion of the court. Essentially bypassing or skirting the actual issue of the complete unconstitutionality of the NC SOR premise restrictions in general. If we win the latest suit moving through the courts in NC, what will stop another legislator from drafting another bill. They will draft legislation that fits or removes only the part of the law the judges find unconstitutional. </p>
<p>Don&#8217;t get me wrong I am pleased with the SCOTUS decision only because it shows SCOTUS finally found an SOR law unconstitutional. Simply because it WAS OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional. This doesn&#8217;t mean that someone in the NC House will not simply draft another bill with similar and possibly even stronger language tailored to the courts and in line with what justice alito, roberts, and thomas stated. </p>
<p>This is not a sprint it&#8217;s a marathon. At least in NC it appears we will be constantly fighting the decisions and rewrite of the exact same laws until somone IN THE NC HOUSE or their constituents say enough is enough.  </p>
<p>The fight needs to and must be waged in the courts. But the main battle ground is in the court of public opinion. Court decisions may be the beginning of changing the public perception of sex offenders. But I&#8217;m not going to hold my breath. Don&#8217;t get me wrong I would rather be legally protected than accepted. </p>
<p>I am a child of the 50&#8217;s and I grew up in the deep south. When I was in elementary school, integration was met with what we first called token integration. I had two African-American kids in my entire elementary school. It wasn&#8217;t until I was in high school I saw real desegregation. That was in 1972. <em>Brown v Board of Education</em> was handed down in 1954. </p>
<p>It wasn&#8217;t until America saw the firehoses and dogs in Alabama on TV that pubic opinion was changed on civil rights for most Americans. </p>
<p>But! This was still a tremendous victory for SO&#8217;s in the courts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: rwvnral		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2017/06/scotus-slaps-nc-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-social-media-ban/#comment-85</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rwvnral]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ncrsol.org/?p=659#comment-85</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://ncrsol.org/2017/06/scotus-slaps-nc-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-social-media-ban/#comment-84&quot;&gt;Tim Lawver&lt;/a&gt;.

Tim, it wasn&#039;t removed.  It never got posted.  We&#039;re just now getting around to moderating the comments.  We apologize for the delay.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://ncrsol.org/2017/06/scotus-slaps-nc-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-social-media-ban/#comment-84">Tim Lawver</a>.</p>
<p>Tim, it wasn&#8217;t removed.  It never got posted.  We&#8217;re just now getting around to moderating the comments.  We apologize for the delay.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tim Lawver		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2017/06/scotus-slaps-nc-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-social-media-ban/#comment-84</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Lawver]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:40:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ncrsol.org/?p=659#comment-84</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve just noticed my last comment was removed, Someone must have thought my speech was inappropriate and that makes this site no different from North Carolina&#039;s ban form FB. Free speech means Free speech even if you don&#039;t agree with terms used or the person who used them.
Tim L]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve just noticed my last comment was removed, Someone must have thought my speech was inappropriate and that makes this site no different from North Carolina&#8217;s ban form FB. Free speech means Free speech even if you don&#8217;t agree with terms used or the person who used them.<br />
Tim L</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tim L		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2017/06/scotus-slaps-nc-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-social-media-ban/#comment-83</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim L]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2017 04:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ncrsol.org/?p=659#comment-83</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Robin,
This 9=0 decision implies the your states Highest court has no clue how to interpret laws in relation to constitutional protection. SCONC upheld the ban! So what gives? Either, Carolina judges have the skills to accurately interpret the laws in relation to the constitution or they do not?- I suggest the latter.

We have the same problem here in Wisconsin, inept or unwilling judges. The willful abdication of the job they took solemn oaths to uphold. This is the actual state of this republic. Now we both know the powers that be just want to keep the cash train rolling, so they advance CRs and debt burdens onto our children and grandchildren for generations to come.

I take the time to suggest to my twins that they may want to inquire about citizenship elsewhere in the world before they are wrongly felonized as I was! Being on FB is not that different from playing in the street! Kids were not permitted on FB when it began. Mine complained to me about it and signed up anyway! I would not choose FB myself since I am not interested in enriching another Harvard Jew. I find it funny that Zuckerberg is not far from suckerville given the vast amount of unsecured personal info the sheeple ( not my term) place upon that site. Some dumbasses even film and place vids of crimes on there for everyone to plainly see.

God has a funny side!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robin,<br />
This 9=0 decision implies the your states Highest court has no clue how to interpret laws in relation to constitutional protection. SCONC upheld the ban! So what gives? Either, Carolina judges have the skills to accurately interpret the laws in relation to the constitution or they do not?- I suggest the latter.</p>
<p>We have the same problem here in Wisconsin, inept or unwilling judges. The willful abdication of the job they took solemn oaths to uphold. This is the actual state of this republic. Now we both know the powers that be just want to keep the cash train rolling, so they advance CRs and debt burdens onto our children and grandchildren for generations to come.</p>
<p>I take the time to suggest to my twins that they may want to inquire about citizenship elsewhere in the world before they are wrongly felonized as I was! Being on FB is not that different from playing in the street! Kids were not permitted on FB when it began. Mine complained to me about it and signed up anyway! I would not choose FB myself since I am not interested in enriching another Harvard Jew. I find it funny that Zuckerberg is not far from suckerville given the vast amount of unsecured personal info the sheeple ( not my term) place upon that site. Some dumbasses even film and place vids of crimes on there for everyone to plainly see.</p>
<p>God has a funny side!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Michael A. Lewis Sr.		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2017/06/scotus-slaps-nc-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-social-media-ban/#comment-82</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael A. Lewis Sr.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:55:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ncrsol.org/?p=659#comment-82</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[wow just wow 8-0 was not expecting that at all.sounds like they will strike down retroactive laws if brought before them also. NC just got their buts whipped and I for one can&#039;t wait for more of their retro active laws to be stricken down.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>wow just wow 8-0 was not expecting that at all.sounds like they will strike down retroactive laws if brought before them also. NC just got their buts whipped and I for one can&#8217;t wait for more of their retro active laws to be stricken down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Gabriel		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2017/06/scotus-slaps-nc-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-social-media-ban/#comment-81</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gabriel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ncrsol.org/?p=659#comment-81</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This is exciting news and a huge win for registered offenders, not just in NC, but nationwide.

To my fellow North Carolinians: I contacted my local SORU and got as response a prepared statement that urges registered offenders to please wait to join any social network sites until the SBI can provide instructions to local SORUs on how to manage the influx of new social media accounts being created.  While I doubt anyone is expected to wait until the state can create some new, more narrowly-scoped law, they probably want to have procedures and policies in place first.  My local SORU said specifically that they will contact offenders in their jurisdiction with instructions once they have clarity on the situation.

Congratulations to NARSOL, NCRSOL, all the lawyers involved, and Lester Packingham in particular, we owe you all a debt of gratitude and our moral and financial support as you continue to speak up for the rights of registered citizens nationwide!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is exciting news and a huge win for registered offenders, not just in NC, but nationwide.</p>
<p>To my fellow North Carolinians: I contacted my local SORU and got as response a prepared statement that urges registered offenders to please wait to join any social network sites until the SBI can provide instructions to local SORUs on how to manage the influx of new social media accounts being created.  While I doubt anyone is expected to wait until the state can create some new, more narrowly-scoped law, they probably want to have procedures and policies in place first.  My local SORU said specifically that they will contact offenders in their jurisdiction with instructions once they have clarity on the situation.</p>
<p>Congratulations to NARSOL, NCRSOL, all the lawyers involved, and Lester Packingham in particular, we owe you all a debt of gratitude and our moral and financial support as you continue to speak up for the rights of registered citizens nationwide!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
