Felons under whose definition?
SR so far are no criminals under any serious objective Ethics, for example.
And to reject "felons" (under whichever definition), they need to require people to identify themselves. That's already something that I consider that goes against bitcoin principles. I wouldn't expect that of Jon Matonis, for example, who proudly supports financial privacy. And look who's on the board... (PS: I haven't verified yet if they really block anonymous memberships, I'm saying this based on what was said on this topic)
As a convicted felon, I think it is important to distinguish between:
Malum in se
vs
Malum prohibitum
If there is no victim, there is no crime.
People who enforce victimless crime laws are the criminal agressors and need to stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A