Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: WI guy banned ! For life .. from internet access ... even possible?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    WI guy banned ! For life .. from internet access ... even possible?

    http://www.aol.com/article/2014/02/1...saolp00000058&

    A Wisconsin man has been "banned from the Internet" by a judge after he posted a fake Craigslist ad inviting men over to his neighbor's house for sex.

    "That's the punishment for 31-year-old Jason Willis of Waterford for ... urging strangers to show up at his neighbors house for sex. Apparently several people showed up at the woman's doorstep, one person reportedly wearing just a coat and nothing else," WDJT reports.

  2. #2
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    I just wonder how they would enforce a ban like that effectively. IMO just punish the guy, and after that don't waste tax payers money with a ban that will certainly be defeated.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I just wonder how they would enforce a ban like that effectively. IMO just punish the guy, and after that don't waste tax payers money with a ban that will certainly be defeated.
    They can't. It's unconstitutional and will be overturned very quickly.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    They can't. It's unconstitutional and will be overturned very quickly.
    How is it unconstitutional?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    How is it unconstitutional?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    1st Amendment maybe..........?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    The state can certainly set limits while a convicted is paying their dues, so while he is on probation unless it is cruel IMO it is constitutional. But I just don't see how they will enforce it, there are just so many ways to get on the internet. Why should we get punished by having to pay for a babysitter for this guy.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The state can certainly set limits while a convicted is paying their dues, so while he is on probation unless it is cruel IMO it is constitutional. But I just don't see how they will enforce it, there are just so many ways to get on the internet. Why should we get punished by having to pay for a babysitter for this guy.
    Some limits? Yes. An outright total ban, no!


    Humm, where have I heard that before.......humm........
    Last edited by notalawyer; 02-15-2014 at 10:40 PM. Reason: typo

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Davis County, Utah
    Posts
    528
    This ban has a good chance of being overturned, methinks.

    I refer to Kevin Mitnick and his release from prison in January 2000.

    As part of the release agreement, he was initially banned from using any kind of communication device other than a touch tone phone for 3 years, in an attempt to keep him off of the Internet. He did fight that decision and won.

    I am away from the house at the moment, but as soon as I get there I'll post links, as I know I'll get called to cite.

    Should be about an hour or so.

    EDIT: Okay, couldn't find EXACT cite (mea culpa), Here is relevent reading from 2003:

    Courts Split on Internet Bans: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/te...gy/21MONI.html

    FUQ:
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, whose opinion interprets law in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, has ruled that people on probation may be barred from using computers and the Internet. The court argued that while this prohibition can greatly restrict a person's freedom and ability to find work, it also protects society from criminals who have turned the computer into a weapon.

    But two other federal appeals courts, including the one governing New York, have recently concluded that such a prohibition is too broad. In overturning the sentence of a child pornographer last year, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the Internet was as vital to everyday existence as the telephone and that while the government could monitor an offender's computer use, it could not stop it completely.
    Last edited by b0neZ; 02-15-2014 at 11:23 PM. Reason: Added content

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    This is a little like prior restraint regarding not yelling fire in a crowed theater. Taken to reducto ad absurdum, the state, in order to prevent people from yelling fire, could cut out the tongues of all theater-goers, which, while effective at preventing the unwanted communication, would also prevent vast amounts of legitimate communication.

    Similar here. By denying the accused internet access, the court is preventing far more communication than just the harmful communication.

    It apparently escaped the judge that he could punish the wrongdoing. And, if repeated, punish again more harshly.
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-16-2014 at 12:07 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I don't think the judge realizes the ridiculousness of banning someone "from the internet." I didn't see in the article to what extend that ban goes.. but, assuming that he is essentially disallowed from utilizing any connection to "the internet"..

    Do you guys realize what this means? No smartphone, limited vehicle choices, educational handicaps (how many college level courses don't utilize computers? I've had classes in which the curriculum was entirely online.) What about work? How many jobs don't require utilization of the internet? Would work related internet access be exempted? Want to secure your home with a surveillance system that you can monitor from work? Too bad, you can't connect to the internet. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on.
    Advocate freedom please

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I don't think the judge realizes the ridiculousness of banning someone "from the internet." I didn't see in the article to what extend that ban goes.. but, assuming that he is essentially disallowed from utilizing any connection to "the internet"..

    Do you guys realize what this means? No smartphone, limited vehicle choices, educational handicaps (how many college level courses don't utilize computers? I've had classes in which the curriculum was entirely online.) What about work? How many jobs don't require utilization of the internet? Would work related internet access be exempted? Want to secure your home with a surveillance system that you can monitor from work? Too bad, you can't connect to the internet. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on.
    Wow! Great point!
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    The Future of the Internet -- And How to Stop It, Jonathan Zittrain, Harvard Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Wow! Great point!
    http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/futureo...heInternet.pdf
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    This is a little like prior restraint regarding not yelling fire in a crowed theater. Taken to reducto ad absurdum, the state, in order to prevent people from yelling fire, could cut out the tongues of all theater-goers, which, while effective at preventing the unwanted communication, would also prevent vast amounts of legitimate communication.

    Similar here. By denying the accused internet access, the court is preventing far more communication than just the harmful communication.

    It apparently escaped the judge that he could punish the wrongdoing. And, if repeated, punish again more harshly.
    This is exactly how we should think about gun laws. Prohibiting the carry of firearms is analogous to removing someone's vocal cords.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    To ad to the analogy it also cuts out the ability to yell fire in a theater when there is an actual fire.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Brain_IDEA_Lucifer_02_590.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	48.7 KB 
ID:	11274

    fire!!!!!!

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Ohio Judge Orders Man To Marry His Domestic Violence Victim.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6690,4058708

    After many years on the bench he was NOT reelected.

    Judge Mestemaker was an idiot and made stupid rulings for years. This one was the last straw.....

  17. #17
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    To ad to the analogy it also cuts out the ability to yell fire in a theater when there is an actual fire.
    Another good point...

    So basically, the ways in which and angles from which these sort of rulings are idiotic just keep growing and growing in number.
    Advocate freedom please

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Judges not being held to account, immediately, for obvious ethical and criminal misdeeds in a official capacity is the root cause of idiotic decisions.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Ohio Judge Orders Man To Marry His Domestic Violence Victim.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6690,4058708

    After many years on the bench he was NOT reelected.

    Judge Mestemaker was an idiot and made stupid rulings for years. This one was the last straw.....
    Well I have a case pending because of a commission ruling that I am appealing ... the main law in reference to one ruling is our CGS Sec. 1-225..
    (e) No member of the public shall be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of any such body, to register the member’s name, or furnish other information, or complete a questionnaire or otherwise fulfill any condition precedent to the member’s attendance.
    Well, I went to a general assembly meeting and was met with a metal detector and a bunch of questions - I refused and was denied entry into the bldg where the meeting was being held.

    So, I filed an administrative complaint. The commission tossed the complaint because, get this: they already ruled on it being OK to require people to go through a metal dectector so, in their eyes, I have no cause of action and the filing of the complaint was an "abuse of process".

    No need for judicial review...we already ruled on the point of law in the past...we won't let you appeal a decision because we won't let you get a decision to begin with.

    So I guess we can start rounding up Japanese Americans again - SCOTUS already ruled on it and said it was OK..so you cannot even file a case.

    This is where our jurisprudence system is going....if its not judges who make law from the bench, its this.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-17-2014 at 08:26 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Judges not being held to account, immediately, for obvious ethical and criminal misdeeds in a official capacity is the root cause of idiotic decisions.
    And contrary to the Original intent of the constitution, guess who changed that intent....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •