Facebook and Sex Offenders

Facebook is joining efforts by other online social networking websites by trying to limit sex offender access to the website:

Facebook, the world's second-largest social networking Web site, is adding more than 40 new safeguards to protect young users from sexual predators and cyberbullies under an agreement with officials nationwide that was announced Thursday.

The measures include banning convicted sex offenders from the site, limiting older users' ability to contact subscribers under 18 and participating in a task force set up in January to find ways to verify users' ages and identities.

"The agreement marks another watershed step toward social networking safety, protecting kids from online predators and inappropriate content," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who announced the agreement Thursday with his counterparts in other states.

Officials from Washington, D.C., and 49 states have signed on.

These private/public cooperative efforts are interesting because they wouldn't even be possible without state registries. The public access to such registration information allows a variety of supplemental efforts by entirely private entities.  If all of the social networking websites adopt similar measures, then Congress doesn't have to pass a law (as it has considered) because a private organization has filled the gap. And any action by a private entity is certain to survive a legal challenge.

HT: Feminist Law Professors

Comments

[David Hess]

I expect these efforts will continue. Where will registered sex offenders be banned next? Youtube? Blogging sites? There are already organized efforts to ban sex offenders' access to such sites. See http://corporatesexoffenders.com

The Internet is one of the few spaces where, to this point, former offenders have been able to speak. Most sex offenders will not speak at a public hearing on residency laws, etc. Any who does risks vigilantism (I know one who had rocks thrown at his house after speaking at a public hearing). They also risk repercussions in regard to their employment, housing, and against their families. As these efforts expand, it is possible that former sex offenders will lose their ability to speak out in the only forum they had left---the Internet.

Here are some examples of sex offenders communicating through blogs and YouTube:
- http://casexoffender.blogspot.com/
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=abz5tSQeuFQ

Many sex offenders post comments on new articles on forums provided by various newspapers. The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle ( http://www.democratandchronicle.com ) not only allows readers to post comments about stories and editorials but allows users to create a personal profile. It easily would qualify as a social networking site. A registered sex offender could be legally prevented from posting opinions on this site according to New York's recently passed E-STOP law.

I have written on this - http://theparson.net/so/estop.htm

[disillusion1998]

I personally find Facebook's continuing actions extremely egregious because they are just completely unnecessary. Every idiot and their mother has flocked like sheep to the government's branding of over a half a million people as ones who need to be restricted and harassed in every conceivable manner. Without considering the history of the U.S., the sheer lemming-like stupidity of it all is hard to believe.

The big problem I have with these types of actions is that they are so much more ineffective and useless than even registration itself is. Registration does nothing but harass and harm people who are just trying to live normal, law-abiding lives. It does absolutely nothing to hinder or deter anyone who does not fall into that category. In fact, I am thoroughly convinced it does a great deal to promote and encourage extreme anti-social behavior, including for some people unfortunately, committing sexual crimes.

I live in Georgia and our criminal legislators just passed a law that will require the e-mail addresses of people on the state's registry. I'm certain Facebook will use that information to block all of those addresses. I hate to break it to the legislators, Facebook, and the people who support them, but it will all do absolutely nothing useful. Any person who is on Georgia's registry will have a Facebook account if they want. I know legislators and those people aren't particularly interested in real facts or reality, but there it is.

I personally have never had a "social networking" account and I don't care much about them one way or another but I am going to use Facebook's actions as an indicator that they are more interested in what makes them look good than they are in doing what is morally right. Because of that, I am going to attack and harm their company, all legally of course. I will be a thorn in their side.

[jjoe]

"And any action by a private entity is certain to survive a legal challenge."

Not so sure. If the private entity is using State mandated non-public privacy information (such as email addresses) to deny a citizen access to a website or the Internet, doesn't that fall under the First Amendment?

[Ilah]

"doesn't that fall under the First Amendment?"

Only if the private entity is acting as an agent of the State. That's the reason behind the push for private entities to take the lead over lawmakers.

Besides, Facebook isn't infringing upon a person's right to speech. The company is simply setting rules for participation in a private enterprise, and is not excluding a single protected class.

That does not mean, of course, that I think the policy has any worth. It's about as useful as trying to conquer influenza by eliminating the access germs have to humans.

[David Hess]

Any who have paid any attention whatsoever to the development of sex offender laws knows that this will expand beyond MySpace and Facebook. There already are efforts to have Youtube and blogging sites ban RSOs. Many newspapers' internet forums would fit the definition of social networks. The Internet is one of the few places that RSOs have to get their message out without fear of retaliation. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of anonymous political free speech. This governmental/private collusion on RSO policy would prevent anonymous political free speech on the part of RSOs.

[Ilah]

"This governmental/private collusion on RSO policy would prevent anonymous political free speech on the part of RSOs."

Again, it goes back to "proving" Facebook et al. are State actors rather than private business enterprises, and demonstrating how being barred from Facebook et al. prevents anonymous speech rather than merely restricts participation in a private business enterprise.

David, you know I agree with the principle you're speaking to. And I know the direction both law and custom are taking. (Indiana currently has the nation's most egregious internet law, set to take effect July 1.) But no court is interested in seeing the bigger picture, nor in connecting dots. Arguments that only go halfway are worse than no argument at all. The results of half an argument can be seen in Smith v. Doe.

Perhaps there is a slam-dunk First Amendment case to be made when a State--like Indiana-- outlaws the use of social networking sites by RSOs. The trouble is, the government is "permitting" private enterprises to do it for them. No State involvement, no First Amendment case.

Unless, of course, a court is willing to see the connection between the public registry and enforceability of Facebook policy. The courts have an exceptionally defined blindspot.

[David Hess]

Illah, I hear you about "connecting the dots." In order for a court to do this, it may require the prosecution of an RSO for obviously exercising his right of "anonymous political free speech" by posting on a "social networking" site with an unreported e-mail address or "Internet identifier."

If the dots can be connected, the 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission makes the point: “Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”

There are no more "unpopular individual" in society today than registered sex offenders.

[Ilah]

I can see McIntyre being useful against a State action concerning the collection and publication of online identifiers. However, that still leaves Facebook et al. free to set Terms and Conditions of membership as they wish. Facebook isn't preventing anonymous political speech; Facebook is saying who can't speak to the masses on Facebook's dime. And while even freedom of assembly's history includes tests for private-but-considered-public grounds when determining rights infringement, (and I think these Internet cases should be including freedom of assembly in their First Amendment challenges, btw), I don't think a court would find Facebook to be "public grounds."

Which leaves us with the job of defining for the courts by what means Facebook should be deemed a State actor rather than a private actor. Is it enough that there's a "watershed" agreement in connection with past State efforts? Maybe.

[David Hess]

Yes, I wasn't thinking of the "free speech" argument as much in terms of Facebook and Myspace as I was in terms of Youtube and other "social networking" sites to which this is likely to spread.

The New York legislature passed an ESTOP law which would make RSOs "Internet identifiers" available to "social networking" sites. Interestingly, Gov. Patterson has not yet signed it. Under the NY constitution, the bill will automatically be come law after 10 business days without the governor's signature. That time may have already passed. Considering the usual course of this type of legislation, this is quite remarkable. The normal course would have been a signing ceremony with lots of fanfare. As another of Corey's posts notes, Gov. Patterson was an early critic of Megan's Law even though, as a pragmatic politician, he did vote for it when he was in the NY Senate.

[jjoe]

"Which leaves us with the job of defining for the courts by what means Facebook should be deemed a State actor rather than a private actor."

That was my view. If they were simply using the public registry to deny RSOs access, that's one thing. But if the entity used State mandated non-public information to deny access, then the action could not be accomplished without the State's assistance--they can't claim clean hands. Would it be any different than if they used social security numbers to deny access?

[eAdvocate]

Lets step back for a minute to REAL REASON why someone sets up a Facebook or MySpace type account? Thats the first question that needs to be answered, not just presume what people think. Socializing or some other reason, say, to get other opinions on some specific topic they support?

First amendment right of assembly, sounds good to me, then lets not forget this person's -supporting a topic- First amendment free speech.

Next, the state through their Attorney Generals has stated in the media, that RSOs intent is to seek interaction with minors or have at least implied that, but stats have not shown that, only 1 RSO has been prosecuted for contacting a minor (to my knowledge and printed in early news reports on this topic). I'm sure there may be more.

Now, the states have also said their actions are to keep RSOs off of these sites, their laws also prove that point.

The sites, Facebook and MySpace etc., have all acted on the information they have been allowed to gather FIRST by illegally accessing the National Sex Offender data base to get the initial information. And, later on through e-mail addresses given them by the state.

Given all that, is there sufficient state action, and grounds for a proper lawsuit, by a person kicked off these sites? Or prevented from using these sites?

eAdvocate

[David Hess]

I just discovered that users can blog on Myspace. If an RSO only uses Myspace to blog and writes clearly political articles (perhaps upholding the 1st Amendment rights of RSOs), would not the deletion of his account be a violation of his First Amendment rights (right of anonymous political speech)?