Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Supreme Court strikes down sex offender social media ban. In other news... Hey guys, it's been a while but I'm back. Who wants a hug?   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Supreme Court of the United States, sex offenders, John G. Roberts, Sex offender, North Carolina, United States, Law, Justices Samuel Alito  
•       •       •

2885 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2017 at 5:20 PM (14 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-06-19 02:21:37 PM  
Don't worry.  NC will write another, equally unlawful ban shortly.

For those that don't know, NC is notorious for writing broad language in laws that restrict people's rights.  (They are the home of the bathroom bill, after all!)  All this means is that the language was too broad, so it was struck down.... just like half a dozen other sex offender registry laws from NC... and lots of other NC laws, too!   If the language hadn't been so broad as to include possibly banning someone with a low-level risk (for say flashing their boobs on spring break or public urination) from even VISITING Amazon.com (much less creating an account there!), the ruling might have been different and less than unanimous.
 
2017-06-19 02:54:56 PM  
Of course his name is Lester..
 
2017-06-19 03:43:33 PM  

KingRamze: Don't worry.  NC will write another, equally unlawful ban shortly.

For those that don't know, NC is notorious for writing broad language in laws that restrict people's rights.  (They are the home of the bathroom bill bill to restrict local municipalities right to change the minimum wage while pretending it is about what the person in the stall next you has or doesn't have, after all!)  All this means is that the language was too broad, so it was struck down.... just like half a dozen other sex offender registry laws from NC... and lots of other NC laws, too!   If the language hadn't been so broad as to include possibly banning someone with a low-level risk (for say flashing their boobs on spring break or public urination) from even VISITING Amazon.com (much less creating an account there!), the ruling might have been different and less than unanimous.



FTFY

//pet peeve
 
2017-06-19 03:53:48 PM  

KingRamze: Don't worry.  NC will write another, equally unlawful ban shortly.

For those that don't know, NC is notorious for writing broad language in laws that restrict people's rights.  (They are the home of the bathroom bill, after all!)  All this means is that the language was too broad, so it was struck down.... just like half a dozen other sex offender registry laws from NC... and lots of other NC laws, too!   If the language hadn't been so broad as to include possibly banning someone with a low-level risk (for say flashing their boobs on spring break or public urination) from even VISITING Amazon.com (much less creating an account there!), the ruling might have been different and less than unanimous.


Yep, our politicians have a 'spray and pray' tactic.  Though I imagine most of it involves shouting 'oh god' while aiming for the face of an underage sex trafficking victim.
 
2017-06-19 04:54:35 PM  
Lester Packingham Jr.

I'm just gonna leave his name right here.
 
2017-06-19 05:07:03 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-06-19 05:11:48 PM  
i3.cpcache.com
 
2017-06-19 05:23:51 PM  
I need an adult!
 
2017-06-19 05:25:02 PM  
Children aren't supposed to be on Facebook.
 
2017-06-19 05:27:05 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Of course his name is Lester..


First name Moe...?
 
2017-06-19 05:28:10 PM  
a/s/l?
 
2017-06-19 05:28:34 PM  

datfark: Lucky LaRue: Of course his name is Lester..

First name Moe...?


Some people call him Maurice.
Cause he speaks on the pompitus of love.
 
2017-06-19 05:33:06 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Of course his name is Lester..


Hustler lied to me all those years.

They said it was Chester.
 
2017-06-19 05:33:37 PM  
"No fine. No Court costs. No nothing. Praise be to God. Wow. Thanks, Jesus,"

Thanks, Jesus?  Where was Jesus when he was raping a 13 year old?
 
2017-06-19 05:35:08 PM  

idrow: "No fine. No Court costs. No nothing. Praise be to God. Wow. Thanks, Jesus,"

Thanks, Jesus?  Where was Jesus when he was raping a 13 year old?


I think 13 year-olds were legal in Jesus' day.
 
2017-06-19 05:35:17 PM  

Fano: Children aren't supposed to be on Facebook.


Child molesters aren't supposed to be on Earth.
 
2017-06-19 05:36:27 PM  
Gorgor?

/too soon?
 
2017-06-19 05:36:58 PM  

stoli n coke: Fano: Children aren't supposed to be on Facebook.

Child molesters aren't supposed to be on Earth.


Po
 
2017-06-19 05:37:15 PM  
Fb- is going to start fathering ugly-ass zoo animals again?
 
2017-06-19 05:38:22 PM  
img.buzzfeed.com
 
2017-06-19 05:43:40 PM  
Packing ham....
metrouk2.files.wordpress.com
 
2017-06-19 05:44:18 PM  

Sugarbombs: KingRamze: Don't worry.  NC will write another, equally unlawful ban shortly.

For those that don't know, NC is notorious for writing broad language in laws that restrict people's rights.  (They are the home of the bathroom bill, after all!)  All this means is that the language was too broad, so it was struck down.... just like half a dozen other sex offender registry laws from NC... and lots of other NC laws, too!   If the language hadn't been so broad as to include possibly banning someone with a low-level risk (for say flashing their boobs on spring break or public urination) from even VISITING Amazon.com (much less creating an account there!), the ruling might have been different and less than unanimous.

Yep, our politicians have a 'spray and pray' tactic.  Though I imagine most of it involves shouting 'oh god' while aiming for the face of an underage sex trafficking victim.


I will throw a Fark party the day Larry Pittman gets arrested in flagrante delicto with an underage boy of color.
 
KIA
2017-06-19 05:46:25 PM  
Something strange here:

Can execute you and take away your very life? Yes.
Can take away your freedom?  Yes.
Can take away your property?  Yes.
Can take away your firearms?  Yes.
Can take away your drivers' license?  Yes.
Can force you to register on a public sex offender registry?  Yes.
Can take away your social media?  NONONONONONONO.  No.  No.
 
2017-06-19 05:51:46 PM  

KIA: Something strange here:

Can execute you and take away your very life? Yes.
Can take away your freedom?  Yes.
Can take away your property?  Yes.
Can take away your firearms?  Yes.
Can take away your drivers' license?  Yes.
Can force you to register on a public sex offender registry?  Yes.
Can take away your social media?  NONONONONONONO.  No.  No.


I think this is more of an ex post facto law.  I'm thinking they will insert this into the law for a punishment for crime later.
 
2017-06-19 05:52:08 PM  
Too bad they allowed the registries to exist in the first place.
 
2017-06-19 05:52:49 PM  

KIA: Something strange here:

Can execute you and take away your very life? Yes.
Can take away your freedom?  Yes.
Can take away your property?  Yes.
Can take away your firearms?  Yes.
Can take away your drivers' license?  Yes.
Can force you to register on a public sex offender registry?  Yes.
Can take away your social media?  NONONONONONONO.  No.  No.


What about how you can kill someone, spend 7 years in jail, get an education, and reenter society with relative ease.  But get caught dating a 17 year old and you have to knock on door, introduce yourself to you neighbors and be put on lists the rest of your life.
 
2017-06-19 05:53:44 PM  

Fano: Children aren't supposed to be on Facebook.


Or dating sites
 
2017-06-19 05:57:38 PM  

BalugaJoe: [i3.cpcache.com image 225x225]


news.bbc.co.uk
 
2017-06-19 06:03:58 PM  

KingRamze: Don't worry.  NC will write another, equally unlawful ban shortly.

For those that don't know, NC is notorious for writing broad language in laws that restrict people's rights.  (They are the home of the bathroom bill, after all!)  All this means is that the language was too broad, so it was struck down.... just like half a dozen other sex offender registry laws from NC... and lots of other NC laws, too!   If the language hadn't been so broad as to include possibly banning someone with a low-level risk (for say flashing their boobs on spring break or public urination) from even VISITING Amazon.com (much less creating an account there!), the ruling might have been different and less than unanimous.


On of the really bad things and NC doing these shotgun approaches to laws (write 20 and see what sticks) is that there is not a penalty to the legislatures for doing so.  Kind of like all the states that keep trying to backdoor a gay marriage ban, or allow teaching religion as "science".

A law gets passed, and we have to wait for someone to be harmed enough by it so that they have standing to file a lawsuit.  Even then it still takes a while to get the courts to ban it, even longer to get to the supreme court.  The courts might issue a temporary injuction from the law going into effect, but it usually has to be so egregious that allowing even one person to be harmed by it is out of the question.   Like if a law was passed saying that "hunting black people is fine, just obey the 5 tiger (tiger is subbing for another word here) bag limit"  That one would get a temporary injunction.

If making unconstituional laws was a crime in and of itself, possibly with a large fine to sponsors, and a somewhat smaller fine to those who voted for it, this crap would stop.
 
2017-06-19 06:06:14 PM  

itsaback: Packing ham....
[metrouk2.files.wordpress.com image 480x559]


Do you prefer ketchup or mustard on your ham sandwiches?
 
2017-06-19 06:13:48 PM  
Okay, sure, buyer beware and the like, but I'm more concerned about net neutrality, y'all...

Supremes are gonna rule on that shiat soon. MNake sure the people are heard: stay neutral.

I said, "STAY NEUTRAL!"

Thank you.

Please remember, you work at the pleasure of the people...
 
2017-06-19 06:16:21 PM  

IRQ12: Too bad they allowed the registries to exist in the first place.


I wouldn't say the problem is the registry, more who gets put on it. If they took a more sensible approach, like not putting teenagers on it for banging other teenagers, I don't see why you'd object to knowing who of your neoghbors is most likely to diddle your kids.
 
2017-06-19 06:17:06 PM  

dletter: BalugaJoe: [i3.cpcache.com image 225x225]

[news.bbc.co.uk image 766x511]


img.fark.net
 
2017-06-19 06:20:32 PM  

solve4x: KIA: Something strange here:

Can execute you and take away your very life? Yes.
Can take away your freedom?  Yes.
Can take away your property?  Yes.
Can take away your firearms?  Yes.
Can take away your drivers' license?  Yes.
Can force you to register on a public sex offender registry?  Yes.
Can take away your social media?  NONONONONONONO.  No.  No.

What about how you can kill someone, spend 7 years in jail, get an education, and reenter society with relative ease.  But get caught dating a 17 year old and you have to knock on door, introduce yourself to you neighbors and be put on lists the rest of your life.


Do you not live in America? Convicted felons, particularly murderers do not re-enter society with relative ease (unless you're rich), and most of the prison education system is a joke. I agree that a 19 year old dating a 17 year old is worlds different from actual child molestors, but the registry should exist. Just not everyone on it should be, but the registry itself is not the villian. Taking a piss in a park shouldn't get you on the list either, but if you rape children, you should definitely have to tell people that. Or you know, just be killed.
 
2017-06-19 06:21:02 PM  
I would have stipulations that a convicted sex offender must reveal their actual age and date of birth on the internet, and would be required to "friend" their parole officer so their parole officer can keep track of their activity, and not knowingly friend minors or frequent sites like Club Disney or Roblocks, that are aimed primarily at children.
 
2017-06-19 06:24:59 PM  
Perhaps they should be required to state "Registered Sex Offender" in their signature blocks.
 
2017-06-19 06:25:20 PM  


I'll just leave this here, while they take a seat over there
 
2017-06-19 06:25:30 PM  

datfark: itsaback: Packing ham....
[metrouk2.files.wordpress.com image 480x559]

Do you prefer ketchup or mustard on your ham sandwiches?


Sweet honey mustard with brown sugar ham.
 
2017-06-19 06:25:49 PM  

KingRamze: Don't worry.  NC will write another, equally unlawful ban shortly.

For those that don't know, NC is notorious for writing broad language in laws that restrict people's rights.  (They are the home of the bathroom bill, after all!)  All this means is that the language was too broad, so it was struck down.... just like half a dozen other sex offender registry laws from NC... and lots of other NC laws, too!   If the language hadn't been so broad as to include possibly banning someone with a low-level risk (for say flashing their boobs on spring break or public urination) from even VISITING Amazon.com (much less creating an account there!), the ruling might have been different and less than unanimous.


Hey welcome back, I haven't seen you in a while where have you been?
 
2017-06-19 06:28:48 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: IRQ12: Too bad they allowed the registries to exist in the first place.

I wouldn't say the problem is the registry, more who gets put on it. If they took a more sensible approach, like not putting teenagers on it for banging other teenagers, I don't see why you'd object to knowing who of your neoghbors is most likely to diddle your kids.


But that is the problem with the registry, the registry itself, it can't possibly convey any real sense of recidivism or danger.  It's just a scarlet letter.  If we as a society want to make whatever crimes a life sentence then let's not pussyfoot around.  Criminal records are public knowledge in the first place the registries are just stupid psuedo safety that does absolutely nothing for the public good beyond further punishing people to no affect and basically creating a burden to our society by preventing people who have served their time from reentering society in a productive fashion.
 
2017-06-19 06:33:43 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: solve4x: KIA: Something strange here:

Can execute you and take away your very life? Yes.
Can take away your freedom?  Yes.
Can take away your property?  Yes.
Can take away your firearms?  Yes.
Can take away your drivers' license?  Yes.
Can force you to register on a public sex offender registry?  Yes.
Can take away your social media?  NONONONONONONO.  No.  No.

What about how you can kill someone, spend 7 years in jail, get an education, and reenter society with relative ease.  But get caught dating a 17 year old and you have to knock on door, introduce yourself to you neighbors and be put on lists the rest of your life.

Do you not live in America? Convicted felons, particularly murderers do not re-enter society with relative ease (unless you're rich), and most of the prison education system is a joke. I agree that a 19 year old dating a 17 year old is worlds different from actual child molestors, but the registry should exist. Just not everyone on it should be, but the registry itself is not the villian. Taking a piss in a park shouldn't get you on the list either, but if you rape children, you should definitely have to tell people that. Or you know, just be killed.


Have the rates of reported sexual assault gone down since the registry was adopted?
 
2017-06-19 06:35:50 PM  

winedrinkingman: I would have stipulations that a convicted sex offender must reveal their actual age and date of birth on the internet, and would be required to "friend" their parole officer so their parole officer can keep track of their activity, and not knowingly friend minors or frequent sites like Club Disney or Roblocks, that are aimed primarily at children.


Do you know ho many people a typical parole office looks after? All I have on Facebook are my kids and maybe a dozen close relatives and I can't keep up with half the crap they post.
 
2017-06-19 06:38:52 PM  

IRQ12: Natalie Portmanteau: IRQ12: Too bad they allowed the registries to exist in the first place.

I wouldn't say the problem is the registry, more who gets put on it. If they took a more sensible approach, like not putting teenagers on it for banging other teenagers, I don't see why you'd object to knowing who of your neoghbors is most likely to diddle your kids.

But that is the problem with the registry, the registry itself, it can't possibly convey any real sense of recidivism or danger.  It's just a scarlet letter.  If we as a society want to make whatever crimes a life sentence then let's not pussyfoot around.  Criminal records are public knowledge in the first place the registries are just stupid psuedo safety that does absolutely nothing for the public good beyond further punishing people to no affect and basically creating a burden to our society by preventing people who have served their time from reentering society in a productive fashion.


No, I'm pretty sure having a seperate public record of who likes to fark kids is a good thing.

If we changed the criteria for who was put on it, you could be left with a list of people who actually like to fark kids. And the thing about people liking to fark (X) is that no matter how much conversion therapy or training you put them through, it will never change who they like to fark.

Now, I'd be fine with never letting people who fark kids out of prison, because that shiat is totally farked up. And unfortunately for people who like to fark 17 year olds, you have to choose an arbitrary place to draw the line.
 
2017-06-19 06:40:38 PM  
Its those activist judges again
 
2017-06-19 06:41:03 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Natalie Portmanteau: solve4x: KIA: Something strange here:

Can execute you and take away your very life? Yes.
Can take away your freedom?  Yes.
Can take away your property?  Yes.
Can take away your firearms?  Yes.
Can take away your drivers' license?  Yes.
Can force you to register on a public sex offender registry?  Yes.
Can take away your social media?  NONONONONONONO.  No.  No.

What about how you can kill someone, spend 7 years in jail, get an education, and reenter society with relative ease.  But get caught dating a 17 year old and you have to knock on door, introduce yourself to you neighbors and be put on lists the rest of your life.

Do you not live in America? Convicted felons, particularly murderers do not re-enter society with relative ease (unless you're rich), and most of the prison education system is a joke. I agree that a 19 year old dating a 17 year old is worlds different from actual child molestors, but the registry should exist. Just not everyone on it should be, but the registry itself is not the villian. Taking a piss in a park shouldn't get you on the list either, but if you rape children, you should definitely have to tell people that. Or you know, just be killed.

Have the rates of reported sexual assault gone down since the registry was adopted?


A better question is why don't we have a registry for other crimes if the sex offender one works so well. I would love to have special 'DUI offender' license plates on people's cars. Having white collar criminals go door to door would be amazing.
 
2017-06-19 06:47:29 PM  

jso2897: dletter: BalugaJoe: [i3.cpcache.com image 225x225]

[news.bbc.co.uk image 766x511]

[img.fark.net image 236x358]


Implied: dood's a perp.

Actual: jury's still out...
 
2017-06-19 06:47:31 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: IRQ12: Natalie Portmanteau: IRQ12: Too bad they allowed the registries to exist in the first place.

I wouldn't say the problem is the registry, more who gets put on it. If they took a more sensible approach, like not putting teenagers on it for banging other teenagers, I don't see why you'd object to knowing who of your neoghbors is most likely to diddle your kids.

But that is the problem with the registry, the registry itself, it can't possibly convey any real sense of recidivism or danger.  It's just a scarlet letter.  If we as a society want to make whatever crimes a life sentence then let's not pussyfoot around.  Criminal records are public knowledge in the first place the registries are just stupid psuedo safety that does absolutely nothing for the public good beyond further punishing people to no affect and basically creating a burden to our society by preventing people who have served their time from reentering society in a productive fashion.

No, I'm pretty sure having a seperate public record of who likes to fark kids is a good thing.

If we changed the criteria for who was put on it, you could be left with a list of people who actually like to fark kids. And the thing about people liking to fark (X) is that no matter how much conversion therapy or training you put them through, it will never change who they like to fark.

Now, I'd be fine with never letting people who fark kids out of prison, because that shiat is totally farked up. And unfortunately for people who like to fark 17 year olds, you have to choose an arbitrary place to draw the line.


But who says it should just be kids?  I am sure the victims of any other sex related crime would want their perpetrator on the list as well.  I would like to know who in my neighbor hood would lie to steal my property or drive while drunk or beat me up or etc etc etc etc.

The registry is an emotional response to the crime, plain and simple.  People are busy looking up their neighbor or whatever when the hard truth is that it's much more likely to be a relative or close family friend with no record that will harm their child.
 
2017-06-19 06:47:39 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: IRQ12: Natalie Portmanteau: IRQ12: Too bad they allowed the registries to exist in the first place.

I wouldn't say the problem is the registry, more who gets put on it. If they took a more sensible approach, like not putting teenagers on it for banging other teenagers, I don't see why you'd object to knowing who of your neoghbors is most likely to diddle your kids.

But that is the problem with the registry, the registry itself, it can't possibly convey any real sense of recidivism or danger.  It's just a scarlet letter.  If we as a society want to make whatever crimes a life sentence then let's not pussyfoot around.  Criminal records are public knowledge in the first place the registries are just stupid psuedo safety that does absolutely nothing for the public good beyond further punishing people to no affect and basically creating a burden to our society by preventing people who have served their time from reentering society in a productive fashion.

No, I'm pretty sure having a seperate public record of who likes to fark kids is a good thing.

If we changed the criteria for who was put on it, you could be left with a list of people who actually like to fark kids. And the thing about people liking to fark (X) is that no matter how much conversion therapy or training you put them through, it will never change who they like to fark.

Now, I'd be fine with never letting people who fark kids out of prison, because that shiat is totally farked up. And unfortunately for people who like to fark 17 year olds, you have to choose an arbitrary place to draw the line.


17 is legal in Texas.
You guys have picked a stupid age as an example.
Try 15 instead, it's creepier and closer to the truth.
 
2017-06-19 06:48:03 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Natalie Portmanteau: solve4x: KIA: Something strange here:

Can execute you and take away your very life? Yes.
Can take away your freedom?  Yes.
Can take away your property?  Yes.
Can take away your firearms?  Yes.
Can take away your drivers' license?  Yes.
Can force you to register on a public sex offender registry?  Yes.
Can take away your social media?  NONONONONONONO.  No.  No.

What about how you can kill someone, spend 7 years in jail, get an education, and reenter society with relative ease.  But get caught dating a 17 year old and you have to knock on door, introduce yourself to you neighbors and be put on lists the rest of your life.

Do you not live in America? Convicted felons, particularly murderers do not re-enter society with relative ease (unless you're rich), and most of the prison education system is a joke. I agree that a 19 year old dating a 17 year old is worlds different from actual child molestors, but the registry should exist. Just not everyone on it should be, but the registry itself is not the villian. Taking a piss in a park shouldn't get you on the list either, but if you rape children, you should definitely have to tell people that. Or you know, just be killed.

Have the rates of reported sexual assault gone down since the registry was adopted?


No. Nor does it reduce recidivism. What it does is tell people who farks kids. And if you're a parent, that's great info to have.

I agree that it contains many people it shouldn't. That should be corrected. Now, ask me if I have a problem with publicly shaming people who fark kids, and forcing them to constantly tell people that they fark kids. (Hint: the answer is no)
 
2017-06-19 06:48:12 PM  
I'm not here to cause any trouble. I'm just here to do the sex offender shuffle.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VfCYZ3pks48
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report