Is what Facebook Doing Legal ??

In our war against the injustices we face, there are some battlegrounds that we choose not to face or even address.  Yes, fighting lawmakers and their Draconian restrictions are and should be our main priority. They affect not only our daily lives but the very lives of our relatives and friends. We must continue to put most of whatever resources we can muster in getting laws and “regulations” overturned. Yet there are other battle arenas that, on the surface may seem innocuous, but if allowed to continue on, ignored and unexamined, will only serve to undermine our efforts.

Earlier this year, I went to sign onto my Facebook account only to discover it had been “disabled”.  No specific reason had been provided so I followed the links offered which lead me to their “terms and conditions” section. Scrolling through their lengthy list, I did locate a sentence stating that Registered Sex Offenders were prohibited from using Facebook services.  (Murderers and convicted financial predators as are gang members who use it to recruit new members are apparently all welcome to use FB.) Since I had to assume that this was the reason for my banishment, I followed the protocol described by FB to ascertain the official reason my account had been disabled. I filed no less than 3 inquiries via their “official” process and, needless to say, they did not have the courtesy (nor courage) to provide a reply.

What’s the big deal you may ask? It’s just a social networking site where people share the mundane events in their lives. Well, for some of us, it is more than that. It’s a way to keep connected with distant friends and relatives and even helps some of us feel less isolated. However, more importantly, this kind of policy-making behavior only serves to re-inforce the societal perception that we are a class of people who do not deserve to play in society’s “reindeer games”. It is discrimination, pure and simple. It is just a little little less obvious than the Jim Crow laws that allowed private companies to deny access to their businesses to the people that they considered undesirable. Who’s to say that other sites (LinkedIn, CareerBuilder) might not follow suit and adopt this exclusion as their policy?

The other major argument against FaceBook removing any member’s account if they are registrants is that more and more politicians and government agencies now have FaceBook pages and thus this company’s policy is preventing registrants from having the same access to our government that every other citizen has.  Facebook also offers hosted comment services that is embedded on websites where one needs to have a facebook account to participate in discussions on non-Facebook related websites. Even government websites often use the Facebook hosted comments plugin, which essentially bans registrants from participating in community discussion and commenting. This policy itself should be construed as banishment.

My freedom of expression and speech is effectively suppressed by websites that encourage commenting, but use the Facebook hosted comments service. This is in direct violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Why hasn’t this been addressed?

How do we fight this battle? Back in the 1950s and 60s, sit-ins and boycotts were the preferred way to fight such blatant discrimination. It appears that in this day and age, we have evolved into using the courts and litigation.  So should FB be sued? Maybe, maybe not, but I do think some consideration should be paid to this battlefront. If we become complacent then in fact, complicit is how society will teat us. Perhaps our government needs to step in and shut down all the servers owned by Facebook since they are violating an entire class of citizen’s civil rights to have access to services offered to other people. This could possibly be done on the grounds of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights.

32 comments for “Is what Facebook Doing Legal ??

  1. eAdvocate
    November 7, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    As much as I dislike saying this, there are folks who I would not want coming to my home, and since it is my home I can prevent them from coming and there is nothing they can do about it.

    If you reread the above and replace “my home” with “Facebook” that answers why they are within their right to do so.

    FB is not owned by any governmental agency so federal laws are no help, nor can I think of any other law that could help.

    While we may not like this circumstance it is perfectly legal.

    • Will Bassler
      November 7, 2015 at 2:20 pm

      I totally disagree eadvocate your home is your own private property but if you ran the business that was open to the public and you decided to discriminate against a specific group of people and not allow them into your business that is an entirely different manner the simplest way to think of it is the Jim Crow laws even private businesses could not discriminate against individuals even though they were privately own discrimination is just that discrimination and if you choose to open a business in this country you have to open your doors to everyone or face lawsuits or charges by the federal government on discriminatory grounds and if Facebook receives any income from a state or federal agencys it becomes even more so of violation of constitutional rights.

      • eAdvocate
        November 7, 2015 at 6:26 pm

        You are correct, my home is mine, as is FB’s home theirs. They set the rules and there is no governmental law to stop them from saying who enters their home. They are not a governmental public accommodation, hence no law stops them from setting rules.

        What you want to apply, based on your comments is, equal application laws, but they only apply when the government is a party to the rule. The government does not own or operate FB, hence equal app laws do not apply.

        This comment of SOSEN is not saying the Gov’t is saying RSOs cannot go on FB, which some states say, then one can sue the Gov’t. The SOSEN comment says nothing about Gov’t involvement.

        Study your reply “Jim Crow Laws,” laws mean Gov’t involvement, there is no such laws mentioned in SOSEN’s comment.

        • Will Bassler
          November 8, 2015 at 11:31 am

          eAdvocate you cannot compare your home to a business. but for the sake of argument let me point this out, if you put your house up for sale and you refuse to sell it to a specific group of people than you can be charged with a federal crime as well is being sued privately. it is your home and you should be able to do as please (not true think of all the city ordinances that affect your home) Facebook is not a private home it is a business that actually has stocks traded on the open market. in fact it has operations not only across state lines but across international lines and it deals with telecommunication. so it has to have licenses and permits from government agencies in plain terms it is administered by the United States.

          Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
          Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 Federally Protected Activities

          The Supreme Court began to overturn Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. , the court held that a Kentucky law could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court ruled segregation in interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, in an application of the commerce clause of the Constitution. the court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal in the area of public schools, outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. slowly dismantled the state-sponsored segregation imposed by Jim Crow laws.

          Along with Jim Crow laws, by which the state compelled segregation of the races, private parties such as businesses, political parties and unions created their own Jim Crow arrangements, barring Disfavored citizens from buying homes in certain neighborhoods, from shopping or working in certain stores, from working at certain trades, etc. The Supreme Court outlawed some forms of private discrimination in which it held that restrictive covenants that barred sale of homes to blacks or Jews or Asians were unconstitutional, because they represented state-sponsored discrimination, in that they were only effective if the courts enforced them.

          • eAdvocate
            November 8, 2015 at 5:42 pm

            Will there is no mention of laws in SOSEN’s comment therefore everything you are saying now is not relevant to SOSEN’s comment/question. The question does not involve laws. Further there is nothing in SOSEN’s comment about selling the website. You are off on a tangent which is not relevant to the original SOSEN question..

            However, you are claiming a “discrimination issue” and the only way you can do that, as to the original SOSEN question, is to prove there is a LAW which gives folks with criminal convictions a right to access FB type sites.

            Discrimination issues, in order to be valid, must be based on laws giving the claimant a right which s/he is being denied. The two sections (procedural) you cite require a basis, a law giving the claimant a right to access that which s/he is being denied,

            There is no law giving RSOs ( who have a criminal conviction) a right to access FB, or other FB type accounts.

            Federal laws only permit certain basis: Race, color, creed, age, employment, etc, but there is nothing to cover criminal convictions esp sex convictions.

            Without a basis there is no discrimination, and SOSEN’s comment mentions no law giving a basis to RSOs.

            If there was a LEGAL basis lawyers nationwide would have sued years ago.

          • eAdvocate
            November 8, 2015 at 6:02 pm

            Here are the correct discrimination laws you are eluding to:
            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21/subchapter-I

            There is nothing covering criminal convictions..

          • Will Bassler
            November 9, 2015 at 12:33 pm

            since I neither wrote the article nor had any input into it my comments were not addressed to the article they were actually addressed to the comments that you made the first I have to agree with you that felons and the subsection of that group sex offenders are not listed in the protected classes through legislative action

            By the same token the courts have put forth a number of other classes that are deemed protected by the Constitution itself they are sometimes referred to as Quasi classes or Quasi suspect classes among those within this group are gay, lesbians and transgender people as well as the mentally ill ( Cleburne Living Center, Inc. v. City of Cleburne ) and there is even case citings where felons have been considered a class in discrimination cases in employment and housing. In the recent case entitled Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, the Connecticut Supreme Court determined that gay and lesbian Americans are members of a quasi-suspect class and therefore the states prohibition on same gender marriage was unconstitutional. The court first needed to determine whether homosexuality was a suspect or quasi-suspect class which would entitle gays and lesbians to stricter protection. The court found that gay persons have been subjected to and stigmatized by a long history of purposeful and invidious discrimination.

            to say that people with sexual convictions have not been subject and stigmatized is basically a no-brainer the second part of this is that the government and private parties can in some ways discriminate against people as long as there is a legitimate interest in doing so. our government has done so by using one defining characteristic unregistered citizens and that is the high potential of these individuals to reoffend in a similar crime. the United States Supreme Court used a number based on information that they had at 80% and has been long known even before the laws were created that that information has been incorrect and recent studies have continued to prove that it is incorrect

            if we take away this factor that there is no higher reoffend rate than the justification for the discrimination both by the government and private entities evaporates. Since the courts have already acknowledge the fact that felons are a class in matters of employment and housing it is not that far of jump to point out that sex offenders are a subclass of felons and thereby entitled to protection under the Constitution.

        • ExpatRFSO
          November 11, 2015 at 11:30 am

          eAdvocate, there are two blatent, fundamental flaws in your argument.

          Firstly, there is nothing to support your assertion that an entity must be either funded by or wholly owned by government for there to be a crime of discrimination committed. Quite the contrary in fact. We have all kinds of laws governing the behavior of non-governmental entities. Now I know you keep saying “there is no mention of laws in the original SOSEN comment.” which baffles me because the first and fourteenth amendments are mentioned, as is Title 18, U.S.C. Section 241.

          Secondly, your comment: “However, you are claiming a “discrimination issue” and the only way you can do that, as to the original SOSEN question, is to prove there is a LAW which gives folks with criminal convictions a right to access FB type sites.” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of law. Laws are not made to grant rights, they are made to remove them. In other words, by default a thing is legal until a law is made which prohibits it. Laws can, however, be made to define the guarantee of rights, like the Bill of Rights, but that doesn’t mean a law must say “Sex offenders are allowed to use Facebook.” It just means that FB as a business isn’t allowed to discriminate against any group of people, and that Sex Offenders are people.

      • Justice Moor
        November 30, 2015 at 5:49 am

        Will, why not use the same logic to an argument on whether a sex offender should be able to use the U.S. postal service. Let’s replace “U.S. Postal Service” with “my home.” On Facebook if you really are upset with a person on a public forum, you can block them and never see any of their comments. On Facebook you can make your page as private as you want and exclude strangers. Not allowing sex offenders to use Facebook really robs them of an invaluable tool to communicate with family and friends. I will never understand why the Postal Service doesn’t make a platform that all citizens (including sex offenders) can use.

    • Scott Roberson
      November 9, 2015 at 7:19 pm

      eAdvocate,
      Facebook is not a home, nor should it be held to those standards. if what you say is true then I should be within my legal rights when I sell a vehicle to not sell it to a African American if that is what I choose. I cannot do that because I am under penalty of law. Just like when a Probation or Parole Officer tries to tell you that you can only enroll in treatment program A or B which is also not true. A person can enroll themselves into a treatment program that is recognized by the state no matter what the PNP officer says. every branch of the government system has over stepped their boundaries enough that it is spilling into the private sector.

  2. Kayt
    November 7, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    There are a lot of people scanning Facebook and to put anything that is real on there is really putting yourself out there but on my facebook page that has my picture, there are all the religious quotes, recipes and animal stories. In other words, they learn about the real me and I truly hope that some federal agent is assigned to my facebook page eternally, he’s either going to be converted to my religion, become a vegetarian and drink a lot of coffee or he’s going to be bored to death and quit his job, leaving his assignment to some poor unsuspecting soul.

  3. Scott
    November 7, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    Facebook has become something it shouldn,t have. Social media has wrecked and still is wrecking many people’s daily lives. I joined a support group for anti social people, but nobody showed up yet.

  4. nathan
    November 8, 2015 at 11:29 am

    California have a law saying that Facebook is not suppose to be using the Megan’s law.
    (c) (1) Any person who uses information disclosed pursuant to this
    section to commit a felony shall be punished, in addition and
    consecutive to, any other punishment, by a five-year term of
    imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
    (2) Any person who, without authorization, uses information
    disclosed pursuant to this section to commit a misdemeanor shall be
    subject to, in addition to any other penalty or fine imposed, a fine
    of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) and not more than one
    thousand dollars ($1,000).
    (d) (1) A person is authorized to use information disclosed
    pursuant to this section only to protect a person at risk.
    (2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other
    provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant
    to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is
    prohibited:
    (A) Health insurance.
    (B) Insurance.
    (C) Loans.
    (D) Credit.
    (E) Employment.
    (F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships.
    (G) Housing or accommodations.
    (H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business
    establishment.

  5. Kayt
    November 8, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    Doesn’t every state have a legal blurb like that on their registry site?

    • Scott
      November 9, 2015 at 12:52 pm

      Some states share their sex offender registry with facebook, therefore The state and/or Facebook have prohibited RSOs from using their site as well as others such as myspace and linked in.

  6. charles
    November 9, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    My friends I have a question, perhaps you can answer it: with virtually no empirical evidence to support the imposition sex offender (SO) registration/residency laws, could there be another motive, one vailed in secrecy, driving these laws? Think about it, just what is the foundation these people standing on, again, with virtually no empirical evidence for support? I mean these people are in a state of panic, behaving as though there is a worldwide pandemic of child sex offenses going on and it’s not. So it’s got me wondering if and when an SO round-up for some distant, isolated concentration camps is coming—-seriously! Ask the Jewish people of Poland and Germany of the 1930s what hate for a despised group will do. Ask those Japanese Americans from the West Coast who had to give up everything they owned and be forced into internment camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor 1941. Ask the American Indian at the “Trail of Tears” in the 1888s, when people who not only hated them but also wanted their lands did. I mean, I don’t put nothing pass these people because they have gone completely insane with fanaticism about this SO thing; they’re out for blood. If I could I would denounce my US citizenship and leave this country for good, I swear I would because I see strange things coming from these people who want these laws in place and the scariest thing is they have courts and legislators to do their bidding, damn their good. You can take what I’m saying with a grain of salt if you want to but my gut tells me something is very wrong with all this, and it has nothing, nothing at all to do with safety of children or anyone else. This mantra, put forth by the proponents of SO laws, is a SMOKE SCREEN my friends. Thank you.

    • ExpatRFSO
      November 11, 2015 at 10:57 am

      I think you nailed it charles. They use fear. So many laws against RFSO’s are illegal and unconstitutional, yet go unchallenged. It takes the brave righteousness of people like Janice Bellucci to challenge them.

    • Chris Farr
      January 29, 2016 at 10:07 pm

      That would not surprise me. It’s not far-fetched at all. Consider what other despised or hated groups of the population could be added… If I remember correctly, Hitler included the Jehovah’s Witnesses, political prisoners, criminals, and homosexuals, though only the Jewish and Rom (Gypsy) were targeted for systematic murder. Had I the option, I would renounce my citizenship and go, never to return. If someone could tell me how, I would do it.

  7. Sharon
    November 9, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    Charles, I believe there is a lot of truth in what you said and there have been other comments written by people who basically agree.

    I’ve thought about it a lot and one of the big questions that I have is WHY does the USA want to make it impossible for RSO’s and many other people to leave the country? What a question, seems they would like to get rid of all registered citizens and their families, wouldn’t that make all of the wonderfully innocent and non-tarnished Americans feel safer?

    Personally, I’ve thought of going to a third world country but then some of them aren’t so nice either.

  8. charles
    November 10, 2015 at 7:31 am

    Sex Offender Registry vs. The Inalienable Right to be a Man

    Webster Collegiate dictionary defines Inalienable Right as: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. However, with the sex offender (SOR) registry, it alienates by banishment, causes to be surrendered one’s life liberty and pursuit of happiness, and transfers, to the state, that which makes the male species what it is—Man.
    The SOR by its very nature, its very existence, emasculates those men who are subjected to it. These dynamics, which are not even within the purview of the general public and therefore not part of the conversation, are by far the most damning aspects of the SOR to the men subject to SO laws. Myself being an RSO for ten years and sitting in SO classes with other SOs for that ten years, can attest to this as a fact. All RSOs that I know which many, many men, are being psychologically harmed by the emasculative [sic] nature of SO laws. Virtually all RSOs know for a fact that SO laws are unconstitutional, this is unquestioned among this group; however, that is not our overriding concern. Our overarching concern is our manhood! And to the male species a man is someone who is: a) head/breadwinner of his household, 2) guardian and provider of his of wife, his children, and prehaps even his elderly parents. 3) makes important decisions that affect his home, his family. 4) he is the foundation in which all others in his orbit stands. These aspects of life are psychologically fundamental for a man’s soul, mind, and spirit to be good to be whole. One might argue… “but these men committed henious crimes and don’t deserve a second chance…” to which I would retort “He who is without Sin let him cast the first stone…” To courts and legistalors I implore you, restore these men and women to their rightfull place among the human race. Give back to them that which they have a “Inalienable Right” to—their Humanity.

    • Paul
      November 11, 2015 at 3:34 pm

      An excellent point, Charles. The word “emasculate” encapsulates what SO laws do to us better than any other word I can think of. Besides taking away our manhood, it takes away our humanity. You could argue that it is one in the same but I think being subhuman or persona non grata is a worse indictment on these laws. Sure our manhood is stripped away in that the basic rights virtually any man has to him our denied to us. Finding a wife and creating a family is nearly impossible because we are economically enslaved being virtually unemployable in every domain. What I find more insulting is that we are viewed as a “contagion”, something that literally can’t be touched, the “boogeyman”. It is no accident that the model used for sex offenders is called the “containment” model. Society doesn’t need to contain human beings once they have served their time. It needs to contain monsters or subhuman creatures. It is THIS suggestion that I most greatly resent.

    • Chris Farr
      January 29, 2016 at 10:27 pm

      Referring to your reference to John 8:7, speaking of “sin”, consider the Kinsey Reports. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports). Many things people mention in their histories would be things that would put them on the registry these days.

      • Chris Farr
        January 29, 2016 at 10:33 pm

        *Edit: are things, not would be things. *Edit: text add. It, and similar studies, lead me to believe that the majority of the population have done things that, were they to be come known, would cause them to be put on the registry.

  9. spotlessmind
    November 10, 2015 at 7:37 am

    Ok. The entire :”Facebook” vis-a-vis “Home” analogy is perhaps one of the weakest, non-sensical comparisons I’ve read in quite some time. FB is a business that provides a service. So unless you begin operating a business out of your home (let’s say a restaurant), the argument is moot. Go ahead. Start a restaurant and deny service to anyone you simply don’t like how they look. Then get back to us. Good luck with that.

    Still, I understand your point, eAdvocate. We RSOs are not a protected group under current anti-discrimination laws. Neither were blacks before the Civil Rights Act, nor gays until recent times. That’s why boycotting was such a major statement back in the day. I was thinking that might be our only recourse until…

    I read nathan’s post. The final point seems very pertinent:

    (H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business
    establishment.

    Clearly, FB is committing an illegal act in California and any other state that have such laws. So there indded may be a legal leg on which we can stand.

    For the record, I highly doubt FB, either acting solely or with the assistance of any police force, are actively serching through their one billion plus users in an effort to root out RSOs. I’m willing to bet that they are reactive in this regard and rely more on the public reporting RSOs. I have a pretty good guess whom I suspect was my “rat”. And there is absolutely nothing to prevent me f(or any other banished RSO)rom creating a FB profile under some “nom de internet”. I’ve been toying with the notion for a while but haven’t done so yet. The main point is that we shouldn’t have to.
    :

  10. Victoria
    November 10, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    I’m confused… while citizens who are required to be registered may not be a “protected group under current anti-discrimination laws” isn’t discrimination defined as the “treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination)

    soooo… wouldn’t facebook, or any other person or entity who discriminates against an individual based on on a class or category they belong to (registered citizen) be in the wrong?

  11. kayt
    November 11, 2015 at 11:33 am

    ExpatRFSO, a great point, FEAR!

    Fear is why a most groups don’t fight. The Jews far outnumbered their captives as they marched from the trains to the gas chambers and the pits that they were buried alive in, but many of them who lived to tell about it said that up to the very last minute they lived in hope that they would be spared; they gave many examples in the war trial records. It’s the same with the RSO’s who are governed by senseless laws and public hysteria that is being used to create fear.

    Also, yes Janice Bellucci is “brave”, but then she isn’t threatened with no home, no income, and most of all, no freedom. We thank her for her work, but remember that she is on the other side of the fence and that’s why she can help us, because she isn’t being threatned 24//7/365.

    I still believe that there has to be a reason for persecution and discrimination that we can’t see yet.

    • Nicholas Maietta
      November 11, 2015 at 8:40 pm

      If you ever met Janice, you’d know that she is a different kind of person than what you’d typically meet in general society.

      She has a thicker skin than most. She’s much braver than you’d think. She’s also much stronger than anyone would guess.

      She’s got the heart of gold, the personality that shines like diamonds because her personality is built on them. I would not underestimate Janice. I wouldn’t put her up on a pedestal, because she has her own.

      Good or great parents try and teach their kids right form wrong. This is supposed to help people grow to understand what to do in as many situations that come their way as possible. As a society, we do not discuss this anymore. Instead, we punish people through discrimination, shame, ostracization. We do not spend enough time supporting one another to do the right things we know are good for society or for the individuals we care about. Instead, we only think of ourselves.

      What i know of Janice is that she believes in the Constitution of the United States and she’s defending it in the best way she knows how, with the resources that she has.

      Janice, as a person who believes in the Constitution does have a lot to lose because we all know that it it generally considered political suicide to protect the legal and constitutional rights of registrants and their family members. But that is exactly what makes her special. She’s not about the fame or the money. She’s all about the Constitution and what America really stands for.

      I would not pass judgement on someone like Janice until you’ve at least met her in person for yourself.

      Attend the California RSOL meetings, at meet her for yourself.

  12. charles
    November 12, 2015 at 7:22 am

    Paul, I appreciate your support on this, thank you, because to people who are not subject to SO laws are in my opinion, not conscience of this dynamic. As to the legal dynamics, RSOs know full well these laws are unconstitutional, especially the Ex Post Facto clause when applied to a person AFTER their conviction and thye have done their prison time, and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in that you are not given notice, are not allowed to confront your accuser, i.e., the person or people designating you as a danger to the community subject to registration/residenct restrictions, and generally not allowed to defend yourself in a court of law against this. And these violations of your rights can be laid directly at the feet of the US Supreme Court. Their ruling in the Alaska case, Smith v. Doe, No. 01-729, a case challenging Megan’s law, a divided court (6-3) ruled SO registration to be “not punitive” but civil/regulatory in nature. B.S.! One would have to be either very naive, very stupid, mentally retarded to believe SO registration and residency restrictions is not punishment. Or, they could be jusst falt out lying too. But no, there is no in prison type punishment with bars and guards, fences, etc., but you are in a psychological prison, an administrative/virtual prison. You don’t have prison guards you have public citizen guards which in my opinion are worse than prison guards because these citizens have been “ENABLED” through legislation to legally discriminate against you by denying you housing, jobs, education, upward mobility, etc., But back to the Smith v Doe case, there were three dissenting justices in this case: Ginsburg, Breyer & Stevens. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, wrote that the majority ”will never persuade me that the registration and reporting obligations that are imposed on convicted sex offenders and on no one else as a result of their convictions are not part of their punishment.” I recommend reading their dissenting opinions, they got it right. Registration/residency laws are indeed punishment and Megan’s law, Jacobs law, the AWA and all its ilk should be struck down down down!!!

  13. kayt
    November 12, 2015 at 9:34 pm

    I said that I appreciate Janice Bellucci’s work, I was not criticizing or passing judgement on her. It is well known that she helps people who are on the registry and that she is very successful. She is named as one of the top 100 civil right’s attorneys in the state of California.

    Why would it be wrong to point out that she has definite advantages? I fail to see a problem with that, how could that be a negative?

    • Paul
      November 13, 2015 at 1:33 pm

      I think both of you (Kayt and Nicholas) are right. Nicholas felt what Kayt was saying minimized the work Janice is doing even though I don’t think that was his intent. And Kayt rightly points out that Janice does what few lawyers would even dare to think of doing even though she is not one of us. Yes Janice has advantages but I think the more people who are on the “other side of the fence” speak out to help us, the more it can only help. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t be our own advocates but we also need those in justice system, whenever we can find them who are willing to step up for us on our behalf. There is no one more dedicated to this cause on either side of the fence than Janice. I have seen her speak several times and met her briefly and have nothing but enormous respect for her.

      • Kayt
        November 13, 2015 at 7:54 pm

        Thank you Paul!

  14. Scott
    November 15, 2015 at 11:40 pm

    Most of corporate business owners follow suit to the rest of the society outcry. I know supermarkets that won,t even hire sex offenders. Nevermind the felony itself. It is more of a certain class that gets persecuted. We have many classes. I think before you know it, this country will have made themselves known as the oppressors before too long. We lack Leadership and Example to our younger children and generation. We technically are enablers to our problems we face because long before internet and sex offenders were on the Big screen, We as a country never really dealt with the issues at hand. Now all these problems are coming back to bite us simply because our elected officials swept all the big ticket issues under the rug. Now out of anger and dismay, they are using the wrong techniques. Oppression on certain classes is not the answer. More control on the content we show our children across the board is the issue and cracking down on porn sites and half dressed people is where the issue is.

    People these days…. they forget what Modest means. What angers me more is seeing the way some young children dress. Why? Because the parents were brought up to be allowed to dress like that so why not let the children do the same?
    Does anyone else see the ripple effect of our actions ?? It is just like throwing a stone in the middle of a calm lake or pond, the ripples go out but they never come back. Are we really “Enablers”

Comments are closed.