Rejecting First Amendment arguments, a state appeals court Wednesday upheld restrictions on internet use by a sex offender.
The ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal came in a Hillsborough County case in which Quinton Alford was sentenced to 10 years of sex-offender probation for kidnapping and three years of sex-offender probation for sexual battery.
The terms of probation included barring Alford from using social media and prevented internet use except for work or shopping. Alford argued that the restrictions were overly broad and violated First Amendment rights, preventing him from accessing such things as news, medical and political information, according to the ruling by a three-judge panel of the appeals court.
Wow, talk about a pointless lawsuit.
Did his lawyers consider telling him the obvious facts that he’s on probation and that the situation is completely different than the case that was won without probation terms involved?
On the basis of NC V Packingham I somewhat disagree with your reference to imposed ban as DOC policy & the lessor diminished privacy expectations of probationers. There remains a case to be made with overbroad scope. While in this particular case the judges imposed P&P restriction terms are rock solid ( or should be) as you say, their are other scenarios to consider. By fact of plea he discarded direct appeal – some may not have opted to dispose of their case in that manner. It’s is important to remember ” law of outright ban” was a 9-0. Therefore some offenders may incur unnecessary restrictions based on untethered wrongdoing. Re: the peeper.
Election time and Floriduh has to show what a great job they’re doing, when are the people going to wake up and see what is happening?.
Unfettered use has wrought some bad stuff other than SOR.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/key-safety-online-user-empowerment-not-censorship
The folks are catching on to what the real issue was in the Whetterling act – use of a database registry. The plain truth is If you can indenture a man to it and it’s maintaining everything is on the table with respect to imposing affirmative restraint upon individual liberty.