A Normal man whose sexual abuse case is at the center of a legal debate over whether sex offenders should have access to the internet was back in court Monday, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review his case. Full Article
Related posts
-
Judge Tosses Biometric Data Suit Against X
Source: reason.com 6/19/24 X’s child porn detection system doesn’t violate an Illinois biometric privacy law, the... -
IL: DOC can’t outright ban parents convicted of sex offenses from speaking on the phone to their children while they are on supervised release
Source: courthousenews.com 4/19/24 CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit ruled that the Illinois Department of Corrections may... -
IL: Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Law Limiting Where Child Sex Offenders Can Live
Source: wttw.com 4/6/24 SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that a state law restricting...
It sounds like this guy is going to have to sue in Federal Court, since the kangaroo-court that is the IL SC has improperly ruled. As discussed shortly after Packingham, the State must show a compelling interest in prohibiting his access, any law must be narrowly tailored, and other less burdensome means must first be used. Also, he has a right to anonymous online speech from previous SCOTUS case law. What part does IL SC not understand?!
I’m a little confused about the time line for this case versus Packingham. Did SCOTUS deny cert to this case before or after granting cert and/or deciding Packingham? When did the IL Supreme Court render their judgement?