There is no constitutional right to use Facebook.

Or, if you want to play Devil’s Advocate, Facebook is doing these people a favor, since if they ever again were arrested on a related charge, every communication they ever sent, every photo they uploaded and viewed, every person they tried to friend, would be subpoenaed as evidence to be used against them. We have the freedom of speech from the First Amendment, but people tend to think that that right comes without responsibilities.

The First Amendment is written to keep the government from taking away our rights to peaceably assemble, voice political opposition, etc. Facebook, as a private company, has the right to deny anyone access its service without damaging their civil liberties.

On the other hand, when people commit certain crimes, we do limit their civil liberties—putting someone in prison limits their freedom rather severely, but that is the punishment our society has accepted to redress wrongs against individuals and society at large. These punishments may extend beyond incarceration as well—felons may forfeit the right to vote even after release, for example.

This particular law should be prospective, meaning that it applies to future actions; public; constructed and applied generally, ie not discriminatory against race, religion, etc.—categories that we don’t have control over, as opposed to categories we do, such as driving an 18-wheeler (they have different speed limits in some areas) or . . . say . . . committing a felony; and written with the consent of the people, which we gave when we elected the officials writing the law. If it meets all of these criteria, then it is our decision whether or not we want to invoke the consequences of breaking the law.

I am deeply disappointed that we’ve degenerated so far that protecting convicted violent felons’ “right” to use Facebook is supposed to be protected by the Constitution. It’s time we stop thinking in terms of manufacturing new rights and start thinking about the responsibilities we’ve already neglected from the rights we legitimately have.

I installed Spector Pro from Spectorsoft.com after seeing their Editors’ Choice review in PC Magazine. Within a day I started seeing bad stuff. As a parent of two teenagers I was simply amazed by what I saw. My son was doing things (visiting sick sites) I didn’t even think he was capable of and my daughter was constantly being stalked on MySpace. I immediately used Spector to block risky site categories (like Adult), restrict when they both could go online (vs. just doing their homework) and I blocked some of the rude (boys, girls and maybe adult men) who she was chatting with. Monitoring rocks. I see every chat, every search they do, every email, websites they visit and even screen shots. It’s not big brother or trust issue to me. These are good kids and I saw what they were doing online. This is vital protection for our most important assets – our children.

http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10592897

http://www.4shared.com/dir/9534755/19d8052b/sharing.html

Christopher Ross’s last blog post..Winter Wonderland Flash Animation Contest

But I doubt that he will post it.

NLO

*****

You, sir, are a disgrace.

At least the politicians are only doing it for political gain, you are doing it, simply, for money.

How many RSOs have been found guilty of these heinous accusations?

How many non-RSOs?

How many adults?

How many minors?

It would not be so bad, if this draconian, fascist process actually worked.

All the published research and media reports show it will not – not one bit. In fact, it provides a dangerous, false sense of security.

You are an example of the worse face of the internet.

A private company, suppressing free speech and social networking, based on a false and dangerous premise.

$$$$ is the all that matters, eh?

Yours,

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield

***

NLO