He used a First Amendment argument to scrap the law, which took effect in August, and created a “near total ban on internet access” for sex offenders.That’s all well and good, although Facebook isn’t exactly pleased….
Police “have discretion about what to do” and “the fact that there is no complaint filed does not prevent the police from investigating.” He added that both the cops and ACS are mandated under state law to investigate "if there is any evidence that a child could be in jeopardy." Harriet Cohen, a seasoned matrimonial lawyer, said high school kids as a group are increasingly "extreme graphic" on the internet, indulging in "risque behavior at younger and younger ages" — and Weiner was "acting in the role of predator" with this stream of texts.
It might have made a good deterrent for potential sex criminals: “Think twice before you commit that crime.
If you get convicted, not only will you never be able to live near a park, school, or in pretty much any urban area, you will also never be able to go on the internet EVER AGAIN.” What actually makes me the most angry is Facebook’s official response to the ruling: A spokesman for Facebook had this to say: “We take the safety and security of our users, especially the many young people on Facebook, very seriously.
And they start young: Sixteen percent start before they're 3 months old, and 50 percent by age 7 months.
Overall, as many as 1 in 5 watch more than three hours a day.