This is interesting... then what happens to the concept of 3 strikes and out?
3 strikes is not law, it's policy of some ISPs. They can still do whatever they want.
Its voluntary system in the US, while law in several other countries.
Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet
51–60 of 112 posts
Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet
#52After 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 me…
9) remove their right to own firearms
This one is a big deal in states like Montana, where you can no longer hunt for food as a felon. And Archery is now in a gray area too, where they aren't letting felons hunt with bows either.
Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet
#53This 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…
Make it extremely expensive people in prison or family have to pay a lot of money to just talk on the phone. This will just give another way for profit based incarceration system to make money for putting and keeping people in jail.
Let's continue this until everybody is in jail.
That's for the best. Reform and all that.
Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet
#54People are commenting here without reading or understanding the ruling [edit: I should say that headlines like the one techdirt gave their article are also misleading; they are playing up the "banned from the internet" angle]. What happened is that North Carolina passed a law making it a crime for someone previously convicted of a sex crime to access social media sites (unless the site completely prohibits access exc…
The problem is that so many sites have social networking aspects to them, like the Supreme Court ruling pointed out. The North Carolina law is this: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?sta...
This law does not prohibit the offender from _making a profile_ on these sites, but from accessing them altogether. So any site that allows users (news commenters, product reviewers, whatever) to have a "user profile" page cannot be accessed.
Amazon.com meets these criteria: https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AGRXMFWYARWR...
Stack Overflow meets these criteria: https://stackoverflow.com/users/8131287/data-scientist
Github, all of Google, Wikipedia, ALSO meet this criteria. (Although Hacker News does not)
There are a few key things that are problematic with the wording of this law:
1. "Facilitates the social introduction between two or more persons for the purposes of friendship, meeting other persons, or information exchanges." The key word is "or" Every website is involved in information exchanges. This effectively does not limit the scope of the law.
2. The requirements of the profile pages contain "and" statements, but they're fairly generic. Name or username/nickname, photographs, and links placed somehow to other friends and associates. If there's a profile page, you can usually access some sort of activity log of the user (comments they've replied to, which may lead to users they've interacted with directly or indirectly) The only real limit here is the photograph, which not all websites (like Hacker News) have.
3. There is an exception involving "Has as its primary purpose the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services between its members or visitors." However, this does not exclude sites like Amazon, given the strict wording of the law. Members are not exchanging goods with each other. This would exclude sites like Craigslist.
4. There is another exception: "Provides only one of the following discrete services: photo-sharing, electronic mail, instant messenger, or chat room or message board platform" The problem with this is that there aren't many "discrete service" websites that exist anymore. Google provides all of these services, Yahoo provides all of these services. Hotmail provides all of these services. Services like chats, forums, e-mail, and photo sharing are often bundled by a huge collection of other services.
5. The vague wording of "Web site" Is it a single domain? A single corporate entity? A single subdomain? The vague wording only works in favor of the law here.
Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet
#55After 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 me…
6/7/8 are not after a prisoner has "served their said time" its an alternative to that.
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet
#56People are commenting here without reading or understanding the ruling [edit: I should say that headlines like the one techdirt gave their article are also misleading; they are playing up the "banned from the internet" angle]. What happened is that North Carolina passed a law making it a crime for someone previously convicted of a sex crime to access social media sites (unless the site completely prohibits access exc…
The problem is that so many sites have social networking aspects to them, like the Supreme Court ruling pointed out. The North Carolina law is this: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?sta... This law does not prohibit the offender from _making a profile_ on these sites, but from accessing them altogether. So any site that allows users (news commenters, product reviewers, whatever) to have a "use…
> (Although Hacker News does not)
I think it does - we have profiles with info like our personal website URL, twitter handle, a brief description on them. Here's mine, for instance: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ivraatiems
Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
9) remove their right to own firearms
This one is a big deal in states like Montana, where you can no longer hunt for food as a felon. And Archery is now in a gray area too, where they aren't letting felons hunt with bows either.
Are some people reliant on hunting for food?
Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet
#58What's gonna end up happening is law enforcement is going to strike deals with the major sites like Facebook and Twitter, which are the internet now, to ban anyone on the sex offender rolls -- and nothing much of value will be lost. These companies are not ready for the shitstorm of outrage that will ensue when it is discovered that they are allowing predators to communicate with children.
Isn't it advantageous for law enforcement to keep as many criminals as possible on social media? Many criminals these days are caught because they boast about their illegal actions (or live stream them) on Facebook.
Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet
#59After 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 me…
10) Ineligibility for many govt. subsidized programs (SBA loans being one)
11) No longer able to become a doctor, nurse, banker, most govt. jobs, etc. (Many colleges won't accept you for the program based on the low possibility of employment after graduation)
Sex offenders have quite a few extra rules. i.e. no playgrounds or places where kids are present typically. I am not against a rule saying "You cannot knowingly communicate with minors online" but excluding people from the internet is a bit extreme.
edit: 12) Unable to rent housing. A large majority of property management companies will not rent to felons...period.
Another comment further down reminded me of that.
Re: Supreme Court Says People Can’t Be Banned From The Internet
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one is a big deal in states like Montana, where you can no longer hunt for food as a felon. And Archery is now in a gray area too, where they aren't letting felons hunt with bows either.
Are some people reliant on hunting for food?
I live in North Idaho. Many people in this area and Montana hunt exclusively for food. Every year they kill/butcher/freeze the meat and use it to supplement.
Not everyone actually gets an animal and a large portion of those people are out there to just get drunk and camp...but there are many who do rely on the additional meat to get through the year. Especially in areas like this where people tend to shy away from the govt. and their subsidies.