Facebook is a creepy place.

You can look through picture galleries of people you’ve never met, check where everyone you know is at all times, and do it all without anyone ever knowing about it.

But we’re not satisfied with all that, are we? We just keep finding new ways to put ourselves out there, because surely someone, somewhere, cares.

So how can we possibly make Facebook a little bit more unsettling for everyone? We could use it to give all our private information and shopping habits to multinational corporations. But we’ve already been doing that for years. We need a game-changer to really hit Peak Creep.

Luckily for us, we have the state of Indiana. A U.S. court of appeals in Indiana recently struck down a 2008 law banning sex offenders from using social networking sites, saying it violated the principles of free speech.

Usually, this is the kind of thing I’m all about — preserving free speech, helping the rehabilitation of convicted criminals.

But sometimes, I just get the feeling that these judges get so wrapped up in taking the Constitution literally that common sense gets left behind.

Do we need convicted rapists and child molesters trawling through Twitter and Facebook’s oceans of free information? People, especially children, are not well-informed enough to do what’s necessary to keep their pages private.

A U.S. District Court judge even said last June that social networks create a “virtual playground for sexual predators to lurk.”

The Indiana court just opened the gates to the playground, told the supervisors to go on break and painted a big red and white target under the playground slide.

Now of course, there are different classes of sexual offenders. On the one hand, you have your public urinators and high school kids convicted of statutory rape for having sex with other high school kids. But then you have people like the guy court ordered to knock on my door last week – a 25-year-old who had been carrying on a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old.

The problem is the law does not differentiate between the two. When Johnny the sexter and Manfred the rapist are lumped into the same category, there’s an obvious disconnect between the law and reality.

Why not enact a law splitting sex offenders into two classes with different restrictions?

We already have laws in place that restrict the activity of sex offenders, so that’s not the issue. And there have been cases where courts have ruled that other interests of the government take priority over the preservation of free speech. It wouldn’t be hard to convince the courts that, in the cases of rapists and child predators, protecting potential victims takes precedence.

The irony is that the plaintiff of the Indiana case is the exact kind of person you don’t want on Facebook – he served three years in an Indiana penitentiary for exploitation of a minor.

I get the feeling we’ll see this case taken to a higher court, so the decision could well be reversed.

Until then, steer clear of inbox messages offering candy and windowless van rides.