Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 112 posts

Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet

#31

Post by pflats »

maxlybbert wrote: post #23
dis-sys wrote: post #3

This is now interesting. Apparently prisoners in the US and many other countries are not allowed to have Internet access. In the US there is a system in place that allows inmates to communicate text only emails. I don't think you can call that plain text messaging "the Internet" in 2017. With this supreme court ruling, how prisons in the US are going to allow inmates to have access to the real Internet? I mean you ca…

The headline (and perhaps the article; I haven't read it since the headline is so bad) overstates the importance of the ruling. The case involved someone on his state's sex offender registry. He was also prohibited from accessing social media sites, and got in trouble for posting a complaint about a traffic ticket on Facebook. The actual ruling is that not allowing him on any social media site for any reason was too…

I don't follow your concerns on the headline. How is "a blanket ban on social media sites is unconstitutional" substantially different from "people can't be banned from the internet"?

Perhaps we're reading it differently, but to me, the headline says "you can't be banned from the internet as a whole", not "you can't be banned from a narrowly-tailored subset of the internet".

Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet

#32

Post by alphydan »

kelnos wrote: post #6
dis-sys wrote: post #3

This is now interesting. Apparently prisoners in the US and many other countries are not allowed to have Internet access. In the US there is a system in place that allows inmates to communicate text only emails. I don't think you can call that plain text messaging "the Internet" in 2017. With this supreme court ruling, how prisons in the US are going to allow inmates to have access to the real Internet? I mean you ca…

Traditionally (for better or worse), prison inmates do not have the same rights/freedoms that everyone else does. For example, they usually don't get unsupervised calls and visits, and depending on their sentence, may not be able to take/make calls or accept visitors at all for a period of time. It's not a stretch to think that this SCOTUS decision is only related to people outside prison.

>> they usually don't get unsupervised calls

Does anyone? NSA and all ...

Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet

#33

Post by jk563 »

Udik wrote: post #26
Tomte wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You don't get thrown into prison for being a threat. You get there for a specific action.

On the other hand, you can only be considered a threat as a consequence of specific actions you took in the past. When you get out of prison that means that, according to the law, you're no longer a threat, and there shouldn't be any reason or justification for limiting your freedom or shaming you publicly by putting your name on a list.

> according to the law, you're no longer a threat

What part of the law specifically rules released prisoners as not a threat?

Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet

#34

Post by cptskippy »

pflats wrote: post #31
maxlybbert wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The headline (and perhaps the article; I haven't read it since the headline is so bad) overstates the importance of the ruling. The case involved someone on his state's sex offender registry. He was also prohibited from accessing social media sites, and got in trouble for posting a complaint about a traffic ticket on Facebook. The actual ruling is that not allowing him on any social media site for any reason was too…

I don't follow your concerns on the headline. How is "a blanket ban on social media sites is unconstitutional" substantially different from "people can't be banned from the internet"? Perhaps we're reading it differently, but to me, the headline says "you can't be banned from the internet as a whole", not "you can't be banned from a narrowly-tailored subset of the internet".

I think his point was the rule isn't in relation to prisoners who traditionally do not have free access to all of the resources a free person might.

Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet

#35

Post by k-mcgrady »

haggy wrote: post #20
denzil_correa wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ban != Access You can NOT ban someone from the Internet but you may deny access to Internet in prisons.

I'm confused by your statement. If "Ban != Access" then what's preventing courts from simply denying access (not a "Ban" under your assertion above) to people outside of prisons as well?

My thinking was same as the parent. Preventing access would involve telling someone who owns a computer and could, for example, connect to public wifi, that they are not allowed to do that and will be punished for doing so.

I think this would be relevant to someone who has committed a crime using a computer and remains banned from using the internet even after finishing a prison sentence (like the kid in the movie Hackers). It doesn't sound like that can happen now.

Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet

#36

Post by k-mcgrady »

izacus wrote: post #29
IceyEC wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't stop you from going online but I don't have to give you a computer to access it?

Again what's the difference? Your actions forbade someone from using the internet, what's the difference besides playing dumb word games?

You can get some money together, go and buy a laptop, connect to free public wifi. The government cannot ban you from using it if you complete those steps. i.e. they cannot be the only thing preventing you from accessing the internet. If you have no money or no way of buying a computer or no way of accessing a connection that's on you, the government isn't required to give you those things for free. Huge difference between the two concepts and very much not word games.

Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet

#37

Post by csomar »

izacus wrote: post #29
IceyEC wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't stop you from going online but I don't have to give you a computer to access it?

Again what's the difference? Your actions forbade someone from using the internet, what's the difference besides playing dumb word games?

I'm not sure how you can't see the difference. If you have a laptop + Internet subscription you can access the internet. If you don't, tough luck.

"Access to the Internet" is the right. Not the tools to access the internet.

Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet

#38

Post by piptastic »

Udik wrote: post #26
Tomte wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You don't get thrown into prison for being a threat. You get there for a specific action.

On the other hand, you can only be considered a threat as a consequence of specific actions you took in the past. When you get out of prison that means that, according to the law, you're no longer a threat, and there shouldn't be any reason or justification for limiting your freedom or shaming you publicly by putting your name on a list.

Actually, being put under probation after release means you are still considered a threat.

Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet

#39

Post by ransom1538 »

After a prisoner has served their said time [for felons]:

1) remove their right to vote [in florida 1/4 african americans can't vote] [i]

2) force them to divulge they are felons to all new employers

3) force them to tell their neighbors they are criminals [sex crime cases which often only involve one witness testimony]

4) garnish their wages

5) seize their property [drug cases]

6) place them on parole to increase mental fear [at any moment they can return to prison without trial]

7) force them to provide random urine tests and body searches [creates anxiety for people with addiction]

8) force them into community service mixed with other felons

This is a system designed to create crime.

[i] https://theintercept.com/2016/12/22/a-quarter-of-floridas-bl...

Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet

#40

Post by Fjolsvith »

pflats wrote: post #31
maxlybbert wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The headline (and perhaps the article; I haven't read it since the headline is so bad) overstates the importance of the ruling. The case involved someone on his state's sex offender registry. He was also prohibited from accessing social media sites, and got in trouble for posting a complaint about a traffic ticket on Facebook. The actual ruling is that not allowing him on any social media site for any reason was too…

I don't follow your concerns on the headline. How is "a blanket ban on social media sites is unconstitutional" substantially different from "people can't be banned from the internet"? Perhaps we're reading it differently, but to me, the headline says "you can't be banned from the internet as a whole", not "you can't be banned from a narrowly-tailored subset of the internet".

Exactly. Prisoners lose a great many 'rights' when they are incarcerated. Internet access is one of those.
Post reply on HN