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

71–80 of 112 posts

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

#71

Post by erroneousfunk »

ivraatiems wrote: post #56
erroneousfunk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But we don't have photos in the profiles

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

#72

Post by btilly »

yaakov34 wrote: post #45

People 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…

OMG, another terrible "think of the children" law.

Did you know that 1/4 of all sex offenders offended as juveniles and are not particularly likely to reoffend as adults?

Did you know that well under 5% of "convicted" people actually were convicted? The rest plea bargained out of a combination of not being able to afford trial, and facing much worse potential penalties if they tried to fight it.

Before heaping more punishments on people who have been through our (in)justice system, we need to fix the system so that its results are more believable.

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

#73

Post by mschuster91 »

kasey_junk wrote: post #47
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…

6/7/8 are not after a prisoner has "served their said time" its an alternative to that.

Oh no, 6/7 are not just alternatives.

Parole after release is common (e.g. you're sentenced to X years, get released earlier at Y years and are now on parole for X-Y years). Depending on country, a simple traffic ticket(!) can be a parole violation, so you get why this is an issue.

Same goes for alcohol and drug testing, again often used in combination with parole.

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

#74

Post by convolvatron »

btilly wrote: post #72
yaakov34 wrote: post #45

People 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…

OMG, another terrible "think of the children" law. Did you know that 1/4 of all sex offenders offended as juveniles and are not particularly likely to reoffend as adults? Did you know that well under 5% of "convicted" people actually were convicted? The rest plea bargained out of a combination of not being able to afford trial, and facing much worse potential penalties if they tried to fight it. Before heaping more p…

the criminal justice systems is always going to have flaws. sure we should try to address them.

but it would also help a lot if we remembered that criminals are people. members of society who screwed up, felt they didn't have a choice, or have psychological problems. punish them, treat them, restrict them, but they aren't unhuman.

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

#75

Post by kbenson »

mschuster91 wrote: post #73
kasey_junk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6/7/8 are not after a prisoner has "served their said time" its an alternative to that.

Oh no, 6/7 are not just alternatives. Parole after release is common (e.g. you're sentenced to X years, get released earlier at Y years and are now on parole for X-Y years). Depending on country, a simple traffic ticket(!) can be a parole violation, so you get why this is an issue. Same goes for alcohol and drug testing, again often used in combination with parole.

> e.g. you're sentenced to X years, get released earlier at Y years and are now on parole for X-Y years

I think that's exactly what was meant as an "alternative" to serving their time. You state it yourself, they were sentenced to X, but only serve Y behind bars. They are offered the choice of some years outside prison but with restrictions instead of that time in prison.

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

#76

Post by ahallock »

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…

Call me simple-minded, but if you serve the time, you should regain all rights. How is any of this constitutional? Like, how can your right to vote be removed?

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

#77

Post by forrestthewoods »

btilly wrote: post #72
yaakov34 wrote: post #45

People 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…

OMG, another terrible "think of the children" law. Did you know that 1/4 of all sex offenders offended as juveniles and are not particularly likely to reoffend as adults? Did you know that well under 5% of "convicted" people actually were convicted? The rest plea bargained out of a combination of not being able to afford trial, and facing much worse potential penalties if they tried to fight it. Before heaping more p…

Edit: Misread parent.

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

#78

Post by mschuster91 »

kbenson wrote: post #75
mschuster91 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no, 6/7 are not just alternatives. Parole after release is common (e.g. you're sentenced to X years, get released earlier at Y years and are now on parole for X-Y years). Depending on country, a simple traffic ticket(!) can be a parole violation, so you get why this is an issue. Same goes for alcohol and drug testing, again often used in combination with parole.

> e.g. you're sentenced to X years, get released earlier at Y years and are now on parole for X-Y years I think that's exactly what was meant as an "alternative" to serving their time. You state it yourself, they were sentenced to X, but only serve Y behind bars. They are offered the choice of some years outside prison but with restrictions instead of that time in prison.

The point of parole should be to prevent future criminal acts. Making "everyday crime" (like loitering, jaywalking, speeding, "driving with a broken light") a possible breach of parole defeats this purpose and thus is no alternative. It's keeping someone in constant fear.

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

#79

Post by clamprecht »

kasey_junk wrote: post #47
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…

6/7/8 are not after a prisoner has "served their said time" its an alternative to that.

You are wrong. Look up federal supervised release.

Source: I served it, after completing my federal sentence.

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

#80

Post by pavel_lishin »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #77
btilly wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OMG, another terrible "think of the children" law. Did you know that 1/4 of all sex offenders offended as juveniles and are not particularly likely to reoffend as adults? Did you know that well under 5% of "convicted" people actually were convicted? The rest plea bargained out of a combination of not being able to afford trial, and facing much worse potential penalties if they tried to fight it. Before heaping more p…

Edit: Misread parent.

I don't think that follows.
Post reply on HN