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: State’s attorney explains ‘short’ sentence for sex offender
Source: myjournalcourier.com 1/26/26 CARROLLTON — The Greene County state’s attorney said social media comments prompted him... -
IL: Chicago bans unhoused registrants from seeking shelter on public buses and trains
Source: chicagoreader.com 12/28/25 Terrance has followed the same routine for years. Once a week, he gets... -
Chicago Promoted Two Police Officers After Investigators Found They Engaged in Sexual Misconduct
Source: propublica.org 12/4/25 The Chicago Police Department’s promotions system allows officers’ disciplinary records to be ignored....

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?