Lawmakers amend bill to restrict sex offenders’ access to social media

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In response to a ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, two Indiana lawmakers have introduced a proposal restricting sex offenders from using social media sites.

State Sens. Jim Merritt, R-Indianapolis, and John Waterman, R-Shelburn, are seeking to reinstate limitations on sex offenders’ access to Facebook, Twitter and other social media websites in Indiana.

Last week, the federal court declared Indiana’s current law unconstitutional on the grounds it was too broad. Waterman authored the original bill, Senate Enrolled Act 258, which made it a Class A misdemeanor for sex offenders to use social networking sites they know allow access to youths under age 18.

The 7th Circuit described the law as a “blanket ban on social media” which targeted a great deal more activity than the actions it wanted to address.

“Although I don’t agree with the court ruling, we will comply with it while working to approve a narrower version of the law that will pass the constitutionality test and safeguard Hoosier kids,” Waterman stated in a press release.

The lawmakers amended the new proposal into Senate Bill 220 since filing deadlines have already passed. If approved by the Indiana General Assembly, SB 220 would narrow the class of individuals prohibited from using social media websites to Class A felony child molesters and sex offenders convicted of child solicitation.

SB 220 would also prohibit criminals designated by I.C. 35-42-4-11 – persons required to register as sex or violent offenders for crimes like kidnapping, seduction and exploitations – from using social media websites to communicate with Hoosiers younger than age 16 without the permission of the parents or guardians.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit