IL: Former Sex Offenders can Proceed with Lawsuit Challenging Restrictions on Internet Use

Admin

A group of former sex offenders may continue with their lawsuit, challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC’s) restrictive policy on internet access for those convicted of sex crimes. A federal district court has ruled that it is premature at this early stage of the litigation to dismiss the lawsuit. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

If you are feeling extremely depressed and possibly even suicidal, please call or text 988 (suicide hotline) or any loved one who you believe is immediately available. If you feel depressed and in need of a friendly community and unbiased emotional support, you can email Alex and Marty at emotionalsupportgroup@all4consolaws.org

 

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify or abbreviate their name. 
  24. Please check for typos, spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors before submitting.  Comments that have many errors will not be approved. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is a winnable case for Registrants. There is precedence for this.

Packingham v. North Carolina is an important case because the United States Supreme Court upheld a decision that SO’s being prohibited from accessing social media websites violated First Amendment Rights.

I hope the Registrants aimed high on their lawsuit because this is the only way the system will change – in the pocketbook!

Take IDOC for all they’re worth! Show them no mercy for they show you none.

0
Reply

Big difference in this case vs a case that covered all registrants. This one, I believe, is about RSOs who are currently in control on the DOC and on parole and/or probation. Huge difference in the latitude given by courts to control people still on supervision.

It will be interesting to see how it works out though.

Since some government entities have started using electronic-only methods of document submission as well as using the internet to post notices, it’s going to become harder and harder to impose a total ban on internet use. That would effectively cut people off from access to their government in those localities.

0
Reply
View Replies (3)