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

61–70 of 112 posts

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

#61

Post by cheath »

dingo_bat wrote: post #57
cheath wrote: post #52

Earlier 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?

in Montana, many people who are lower income are partially or heavily reliant on harvesting big game for food.

if you're a felon, ironically, often times this need is compounded because you might have limited job opportunities due to your status as a felon.

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

#62

Post by Navarr »

belorn wrote: post #51
Navarr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Other countries also aren't beholden to US Supreme Court rulings so...

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

#63

Post by ddlatham »

Ccecil wrote: post #60
dingo_bat wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Is that:

(hunt exclusively) for food?

or

hunt (exclusively for food)?

I.e. do they get all of their food from hunting? (what GP asked) Or do they eat all that they hunt?

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

#64

Post by clarkmoody »

trinifar wrote: post #41
ransom1538 wrote: post #39

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 me…

"After being a felon..." Sounds like they were a criminal before that.

Lots of felonies are completely ridiculous and cater to special interests, such as felony copyright infringement.

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

#65

Post by maxlybbert »

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".

To me the headline says "you can't be banned from any part of the internet for any reason," or, alternatively, "everybody has a right to access the internet." The actual ruling is much narrower: "it's unconstitutional to ban all sex offenders from accessing social media sites." The Court hasn't officially said anything about other people (e.g., current prisoners, people on probation, specific people convicted of computer-related crimes, etc.) or other sites on the internet.

I was responding to the questions "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 can not ban those inmates from accessing the Internet, right?"

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

#66

Post by ceejayoz »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #36
izacus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

I'm pretty sure US prisons don't allow you to have a laptop (they certainly don't permit cell phones), nor is there likely to be public wifi on the premises.

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

#67

Post by ceejayoz »

elkos wrote: post #2

If I recall correctly Kevin Mitnick was banned from using a phone or a computer quite a while back. Right?

My understanding of the ruling is that individuals can still be banned, on a case-by-case basis, but not an entire class of offenders by default.

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

#68

Post by Qwertious »

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?

Suppose a state doesn't bother to install an internet connection in the prison, and confiscates phones with mobile data. This is denying access.

Suppose someone is caught with an internet phone in jail and is hauled in front of a judge. If it's banned, then they can have their jail term increased.

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

#70

Post by Avshalom »

dingo_bat wrote: post #57
cheath wrote: post #52

Earlier 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?

Theres a lot of little and big costs associated with living in the middle of fuck all nowhere that are offset by hunting (and fishing but I'm pretty sure felons are allowed fishing poles). I dunno Montana but Alaska, Yukon, Nunavut: a lot of people are reliant reliant on wildlife.
Post reply on HN