• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/02/...st-prank/20829988/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058&

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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
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:

b0neZ

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
505
Location
Davis County, Utah
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/technology/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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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!
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
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.:cool:
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Judges not being held to account, immediately, for obvious ethical and criminal misdeeds in a official capacity is the root cause of idiotic decisions.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Ohio Judge Orders Man To Marry His Domestic Violence Victim.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...kZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=C-sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=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:
Top