ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (04/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings




FL: U.S. appeals court: Lifetime computer ban for sex offender doesn’t violate First Amendment

[ – 11/30/20]

A federal appeals court has upheld a lifetime ban on computer use for a South Florida sex offender who used text messaging to send a naked picture of himself to a person he thought was a 14-year-old girl.

____ challenged his conviction on grounds including violation of the First Amendment, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit unanimously upheld the sanction in a ruling handed down on Monday.

The sentence, which included nearly two years in prison and lifetime conditional release, was “tailored to his offense,” Chief Judge William Pryor wrote. The computer ban was tied to ____ ‘s conditional release, although he can ask his probation officer for permission to use computers for legitimate reasons.

Attorneys for the Hallandale Beach man argued the computer restriction violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in Packingham v. North Carolina, in which the court struck down on First-Amendment ground a state law barring registered sex offenders from accessing social media known to attract minors regardless of whether they interacted with minors.

The 11th Circuit panel said there were differences between the cases.

Read the full article


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I get why he lost (lifetime supervision), but man this just doesn’t sit well with me. I wonder, would this embolden Florida or any state in the 11th to try and retroactively apply this to people not sentenced to lifetime supervision or as a punishment by the court? Even as punishment, a lifetime internet ban is cruel and unusual for anyone and under the plantiffs’ circumstances it seems especially barbaric. Hell, how did he get lifetime supervision? That punishment seems excessive for the crime committed and there wasn’t even a real victim….

As it stands now, the fact that the minor was fictitious is not a defense. Accordingly, I would argue the same logic demands that the original poser and the FBI UA should be charged with endangering the same fictitious minor by arranging a meet with a potential predator.

Excellent point Dustin! I like that, but I’m sure the FBI wouldn’t be amused. Apparently, some logic only works in one direction 😒

Should be using the defense of just a naked image by itself does not constitute a sex offense. After all, there are nudist colonies.


Could there be a separate news section on the site called ,” And this week in Florida….” Why in the hell would ANYONE go there if they were in ANYWAY connected to ANYTHING related to the registry.

There’s a reason they call it Flori-duh and a local LA radio station hosts a segment called Florida/Not Florida in which the hosts read crazy news stories (often involving potential Darwin Award winners) and callers must guess if the story originated from Florida or not.

I know much of the country laughs at crap that comes out of CA, so for all I know there’s a call-in show called California/Not California.

Take it all the way to the Supreme Court. This internet ban is cruel and unusual punishment because it blocks the poor man’s necessity of essential services like email, looking for employment, and other forms of communication to get through life.

Taking it to SCOTUS probably won’t help as he’s allowed to use the internet for all the important things you’ve mentioned with permission from the PO.

It should be appealed to SCOTUS.

First amendment means the government must use the least restrictive means possible. A lifetime ban of all internet other than approval of a government agent does not qualify. The government agent can say no without reason and there are no repercussions. This is not narrowly tailored at all.

What they don’t realize when appeals courts set precedent like this is that it can be applied now to any crime. So someone ordered illegal prescription, sent threatening email, or falsified a tax record online…BOOM…lifetime internet ban. Good for goose…good for gander right?

Hey, Chris F!

Long time no see! It’s nice seeing posters from before.

Odd decision, as courts already stated government blocking people on Twitter was violating first amendment

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x