A convicted sex offender in Washington challenged a provision of his probation that prevented him from “possessing or accessing pornographic materials” and won!
The definition of “pornographic materials”, he argued, is unconstitutionally vague. It could mean watching the film Titanic, or having a Victoria’s Secret catalogue.
The Court agreed, finding, “the statute must “give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what [behavior] is prohibited.” Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108. Second, the law must provide explicit standards to those charged with enforcing the law in order to prevent “arbitrary and discriminatory” application. Id. Finally, a vague law that encroaches on “‘sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms’” naturally inhibits the exercise of those freedoms because individuals who are uncertain of the meaning of a statute will steer “‘far wider”‘ than necessary in order to ensure compliance. Id. at 109 (quoting Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 372, 84 S. Ct. 1316, 12 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1964)).”
Hoorah!! A victory for common sense!! (And kudos to a judge who does not jump on the let’s beat up the sex offender bandwagon!) I wonder if one could use the same or similar legal argument against all the endless, complex, and unique city/ county/state-distinct restrictions that apply to Registrants? I have often wondered how: (1) a registered “person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what [behavior] is prohibited” could gain and retain knowledge of all the many & varied laws and restrictions that apply to him/her? And (2) news & anecdotal reports certainly support the argument that these many restrictions are applied in an “arbitrary and discriminatory” manner. Similarly, I have often wondered – with new restrictions being written all the time – how can “a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity” be expected to and responsible for having knowledge of all the laws and restrictions? If some a-hole lawmaker decides, for example, that registrants are no longer allowed to operate a motorized vehicle between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m., how are we to be aware of such a law?? Nobody sends us flyers/notices/alerts, so I don’t understand how we can be held responsible for knowing such laws.