Court Realizes Lifetime Internet Ban Is Unreasonable
from the seems-a-bit-extreme,-right? dept
We've discussed how ridiculous it is for courts to ban people from the internet entirely just because the crime they committed took place on the internet. You don't see people getting banned from using the telephone because their crime involved a phone. However, judges keep putting such a ban in place. An appeals court has now overturned such a ban, pointing out how excessive it appeared to be. In this case, the guy was "prohibited from accessing any computer equipment or any 'online' computer service at any location, including employment or education. This includes, but is not limited to, any Internet service provider, bulletin board system, or any other public or private computer network." As the article notes, that would mean he basically couldn't use a mobile phone (or VoIP phone) these days. And, it's getting increasingly difficult to find a job or class that doesn't involve computers and the internet in some manner. To ban it completely, for the rest of this guy's life, was clearly extreme -- and it's good that the appeals court has agreed. As for the lower court, it sounds like they just were so interested in the "internet" angle to the case, they didn't quite realize the consequences of a complete ban for life.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Parallels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Parallels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Parallels
Besides, he can still use a bank account EVEN if he is in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child molesters are banned from being around kids, I say F this ahole. People bitch about how bad things are but when someone does something about it pansies like you bitch about rights. You reap what you sow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, don't do the crime if you can't do the t
To get back to the actual case, there are already laws against child porn, and the man was sentenced to prison. Creating arbitrary and unenforceable additional punishments that won't get to the root of the problem doesn't help anybody.
You can't pull out the "think of the children" card unless you're willing to actually think it through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, don't do the crime if you can't do t
Really? I thought that was the main tactic that politicians use all the time. Think of the Children laws are never thought through when they're proposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, it must be pointed out that in the case of internet predators, often part of their sentencing deal is a restriction on internet in exchange for less time in prison. Rarely does a felon get the max time in the clink. They barter off years or decades with exchanges of other liberties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
real quick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perma ban
As the article states, it is extremely difficult to find work that doesnt make you use "computer equipment or any 'online' computer service at any location, including employment or education that includes, but is not limited to, any Internet service provider, bulletin board system, or any other public or private computer network."
So by these guidelines, the guy couldnt even work at a Burger King, McDonalds, Taco Bell, or gas station because the registers are networked to those companies private networks, as are the time clocks, phones, and ordering systems.
He couldnt work at a retail store because the credit card machines are networked, nor could he work at a Best Buy, Circuit City, or even as an auto mechanic because these companies have all of their employees working with computers of one type or another.
Basically this guy was sentenced to be forever on welfare because he wouldnt be able to find a job. Thats overly broad and IMHO, cruel and unusual punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perma ban
At this point, there are computers everywhere and more and more of them have the ability to access the internet as time goes on. I don't think we're far off from seeing internet-enabled computers built into cars.
An internet-enabled car shouldn't be an issue for this guy, though, because for the reasons you pointed out, he will never be able to get a decent job again in his life to afford one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perma ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drunk drivers are banned from the road, but even that isn't a lifetime ban.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]