Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal
from the so-can-we-stop-issuing-these-bans? dept
For nearly a decade now, we've been questioning the wisdom of punishing a criminal who used the internet as part of their crime, with a ban from internet access. With the internet becoming so integral to everyday activity, it almost seems impossible to ban them from getting on the internet at all. Does it mean they can't use a smartphone (or even a featurephone)? Can they not use VoIP? It really makes very little sense. Thankfully, it seems like most of these bans get overturned. All the way back in 2002, we wrote about a court overturning such a ban, saying that it was an "unfair encroachment on his liberties." In 2007, a similar ban was overturned. Earlier this year, another such ban was overturned as being a restriction on the guy's free speech.And yet, the courts seem to keep giving out these bans. So, yet again, we have a story of a 30 year computer ban being overturned. And again, the court found that such a ban seems to go way too far. In this case, it was deemed "substantively unreasonable" and "aggressively interferes with the goal of rehabilitation."
So, at what point do judges stop giving out these kinds of bans in the first place?
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
Filed Under: criminal, internet ban
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Unfortunately, this court's order is fairly tame
I am sad to say that court's order does not widely oppose Internet or Computer bans "Here, however, the question is not the appropriateness of an internet restriction but its form and severity." Essentially, the court just wants an option for a probation officer to give individual waivers and (possibly) a shorter ban period. This ban is going to be reimposed with the hope that a probation officer's judgments will tailor the restriction.
I actually published on this topic today as well. I have a slightly different take here http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2010/right-wrong-reasons-dc-court-appeals-vacates-30-year-computer-b an
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what´s now? Infringing copyright will be punished worst them stealing credit cards numbers?
Dumb laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re:Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: re:Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal
It's nice because they don't have to house and feed you in the meanwhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re:Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bans
What I can see with internet control would be a court ordering some control. So that you can still get a VIOP phone with your cable, but the computer being there only for work and living requirements. (Email to family, paying bills, looking for work, banking, ect and so on.)
The only problem I can see with that is how you would enforce such a ban, or that it would even be possible. Between working with phones, work computers, rebooted ATMs running a win98 login, and library computers it would get nearly impossible.
More then like the best option was be to state that a parole officer should set limits and then do their own work to try and help. (For crimes that don't involve outright murder, rape, vilance, or large amounts of money I tend to support aggressive rehabilitation.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hundreds more examples could be given. The scope of what is available online is now so broad, and in many cases so essential, that it's not analogous to banning people from contact with certain areas or people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bu but but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bu but but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T and Apple unfairly encroach on our liberties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
to use your example: what if, instead, the pedophile grabbed the kid as he came off public public transit and molested them. Should he now be banned from all forms of public transportation or just that bus, or not in public at all? The problem with broad strokes like this is that they're too broad - always.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know that it is easy to ban use of the Internet of a pedophile, but how about someone who's been convicted of downloading a couple of songs/videos illegally.
As the Internet has become almost a necessity of daily life, I think that banning someone completely from the use of email or a job hunting site solves nothing and creates a completely new underclass of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]