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
-
IL: ‘I Call It Pretend Freedom’: Older Adults Coming Out of Illinois Prisons Face Steep Roadblocks in Their Reentry Journey
Source: goodmenproject.com 9/7/23 At least 17,000 adults age 50 and older have been released from Illinois... -
UPDATED 8/21/23: Corrections to the Paris, Wisconsin 6,500 Feet Residency Restriction by the 7th Circuit
UPDATED Source: floridaactioncommittee.org 8/21/23 Attorneys with the Paris case (6500-foot residence restriction) have contacted us to... -
IL: SIU Illinois researcher’s team advocates for new assessment, treatment approach for juvenile sex offenders
Source: news.siu.edu 7/6/23 CARBONDALE, Ill. — Tamara Kang, assistant professor in Southern Illinois University Carbondale’s School...
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?