The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that completely restricting a person’s access to the internet as a condition of their parole from prison is a violation of the First Amendment.
“Like the statute in Packingham, Mr. Ross’s condition of parole ‘bars access to…sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge,’” the decision states.
RELATED LINKS:
Supreme Court says restricting internet access while on parole violates First Amendment [wvrecord.com 3/19/18]
Great news! Now, about that whole registry… Come on, Judges. Let’s not be afraid to do the morally and scientifically proven right thing.
And this gem from the article:
____________________________
In December 2014, Ross’s parole officer learned that M.W. had a computer and Ross was arrested and returned to custody for violating the conditions of his parole, even though no forensic analysis of the computer was done to determine whether Ross had used the computer or had otherwise logged on to the internet during his parole.
____________________________
Nice that no evidence is needed to send someone back to jail.
Told you so. Now to get the judges to throw people into jail for violating the rights of fellow citizens. Lawsuits are not enough.
thats like telling a 290 (CA) he cant drive while on parole… its basically a necessity esp if you are rural….. anyways I wasnt supposed to be on the internet when i was on parole… I was anyways, there are MANY reasons you HAVE to be.. banking, dmv renewals, car insurance, Email that has to do with all of the above, paperless statements, forms for lawsuits, to pay bills (like a traffic ticket lol) A zillion reasons,,, its cause THEY like to be in CONTROL, ohhh yea you ‘could be’ looking at porn or doing a hookup… but you cant convict a wanna be bank robber by saying he wants to rob a bank…. if it hasn’t happened then STFU… I even told my PO you cant violate someone for something that “MIGHT happen” then again I had mostly LAME PO’s anyways….
Bit by bit, the cookie crumbles. This seems like a further extension of the Packingham win. I guess the right strategy all along was to chip-away at the laws until we get to the ‘Core’. I’m anticipating a lawsuit in the near future that will take the 6th Court Circuit win, calling the registry “Punitive”, and further eroding the registry’s ‘tentacles’.
Hmmm….it’s a shame this wasn’t done a few years ago when I was on parole. One of my restrictions was no internet access.