Why Meta’s Banning of People Convicted of Sex Offences (PCOSOs) is Unlawful

‘Big Tech companies have no business interfering with or basing decisions on internal British law.’

SAFARI - Supporting All Falsely Accused with Reference Information - have said that about one fifth of correspondents to them are maintaining innocence, which extrapolates to around 15,000 people in prison at any one time being PMIs (Prisoners Maintaining Innocence) and to hundreds of thousands of people in the community if you count backwards in time. We might want to just count back to 2003, when the New Labour government’s Sex Offences Bill massively expanded the scope for allegations, under the watchful feminist eye of Harriet Harman (now the ‘Mother of the House of Commons’).

The broad brush of the contemporary British media-justice system - they’re in absolute, regularly observable collusion - means that an allegation is enough to end an individual’s social life, probably career, and often family situation, if not their actual life. The 2003 Bill coincided with the mass rollout of social media over the new medium of the Internet; but as the daily, half reported (alleged) ‘rape’ story scrolled by, precious few SM users seem to imagine how they would feel if a false allegation happened to them (you can tell by many users’ comments).

A good number of PCOSOs (People Convicted Of Sex Offences) in prison and on probation did and do need help, courses of some sort, and there are a surprising amount who were ‘relieved’ to be ‘caught’. If these people had been encouraged to get help without judgement before the offending happened, how much pain could have been saved? But along with these cases, which is the machine running as it should, there are an almost parallel number of false allegations and wrongful convictions. Researchers in the field Patrick Graham and William Collins have both quoted 60-70,000 false allegations (FA’s) per year, relating to the number of allegations of rape to the police that are either not prosecuted or the defendant is acquitted at trial - but political feminism likes to count differently, and then directly push laws based on its own readings.

You might think that after the FA (False Allegation) air has cleared, or after the individual has done their time, they might be able to return to a normal life. Indeed, isn’t that the point of having a rehabilitative justice system, which is a feather progressive political parties like Labour like to wear in their caps? Well, no. In tabloid-drenched, puritanical, first-level thinking Britain - and probably all around the world in our blip-feed age - the life that the accused knew before the allegations is over. 

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms, has a global policy prohibiting people convicted of sex offences (PCOSOs) from using its services. However, it has no interest in or scope for false allegations. Have you tried complaining about any tech service by their internal systems? They will say ‘this has been decided by the courts’. This applies uniformly worldwide, and covers alleged offences related to the sexual abuse or exploitation of children or adults.

But, what about those falsely, spuriously or exaggeratedly convicted, such as Andy Malkinson, Donald Trump or Jonathan King? In Malkinson’s case it wasn’t him, Trump appears to have been a victim of ‘lawfare’ (wrong kind of victim), and King says that while he has had sexual relations with many people, none of it was illegal. Does Meta not understand the grey areas of normal life? Users can also report suspected accounts via Facebook's dedicated portal for PCOSOs. Once confirmed, the account is permanently disabled without appeal in these cases.

Why such a blanket ban when so many so-called sexual offences don’t involve children, are fiercely contested, and when social media has become such an integral part of people’s social lives? Social media can in fact be a ‘protective factor’ in reintegrating PCOSOS - including those who are actually guilty - back into society, and decrease the isolation that may have led some of them into problematic areas in the first place.

UK police can directly notify Meta of convictions, triggering enforcement. Convicted offenders are not automatically barred by UK law from social media (unlike some US states), but Meta's private policy ‘fills the gap’. This implies a collusion between Big Tech and governmental agencies that the General Data Protection Regulations of 2018 were meant to keep separate in respect of sovereign privacy and human rights. Big Tech companies have no business interfering with or basing decisions on internal British law.

Google AI says that Meta's policy of banning PCOSOs in the UK is potentially unlawful primarily due to data protection and human rights concerns, specifically regarding automated decision-making, the reliability of data used, and the lack of a robust, human-led appeal process.

• Using AI to automatically ban accounts without meaningful human review can violate Article 22 of the UK GDPR, which protects individuals from solely automated decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects on them. Banning someone from widely used platforms can have "real world consequences" including loss of business earnings and social isolation. There have also been numerous reports of Meta's AI falsely accusing users of child sexual exploitation violations and subsequently banning their accounts. Users often complain that Meta does not clearly explain what triggered the ban, making it difficult to appeal.

  
  

• Blanket bans, especially those based on potentially flawed data or an overreach of the necessary restrictions, could be argued to interfere with an individual's right to a private life. While PCOSOs do have privacy rights, depending on probation licence conditions, the general principle is that restrictions must be "really necessary" and proportionate. The lack of an accessible and effective human-led appeals process is a major point of contention.

• Many users (PCOSOs or otherwise) find it nearly impossible to speak to a person to challenge an automated decision, which could violate the right to an effective remedy if the ban is wrongful and causes significant harm. The implementation of Meta’s policy through opaque, automated systems that result in significant, unchallengeable false positives is the primary source of potential unlawfulness.

Social media has become essential for social participation, family connections, employment, and civic engagement in modern life. A lifetime ban based solely on a past conviction - regardless of the offence's severity, the time elapsed, or the individual's rehabilitation - could unduly restrict access to these vital aspects of life. This might infringe Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).

In R (on the application of F) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011), the Court of Appeal held that a total internet ban imposed via a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) was "always... disproportionate" because it wasn't tailored to the specific risk. In 2012, the Court of Appeal deemed an internet ban "unreasonable" for a PCOSO, noting that home computer access is now akin to a basic utility.

The Meta policy's blanket nature and reliance on non-public data make it vulnerable to challenges as disproportionate and privacy-invasive. No major UK court has struck it down yet (enforcement is report-based and sporadic), but precedents on state bans suggest a strong case for unlawfulness if litigated. PCOSOs retain rights to rehabilitation and reintegration, and Meta's approach risks prioritizing vigilance over balanced protection - let alone the free association and human rights of those maintaining innocence.