By Michaek Karlik . . . It does not violate the First Amendment for a court to impose broad restrictions on a sex offender’s use of the Internet and social media during his sentence, the Court of Appeals decided on Thursday.
A three-judge appellate panel rejected the claims of Christopher David Landis that such limitations violated Colorado law, as well as federal and state constitutional protections on free speech.
“While we fully acknowledge that, to date, the internet has become one of the most important places, if not the most important place, for people to exchange views and ideas, under the circumstances here, we disagree with both of Landis’s contentions,” wrote Judge Janice B. Davidson in the panel’s opinion. . . .
Although trial courts have broad discretion to impose probationary conditions, they must be related to the offense and cannot be unnecessarily severe or restrictive. Deputy State Public Defender Jeanne Segil told the appellate panel during oral arguments last year that such a broad curtailment of her client’s online activity — including through apps and smart phones and streaming devices — had no bearing on his original crime. . . .
Judge Craig R. Welling appeared sympathetic to that argument, as he pressed the government to justify the purpose of the “broadest possible ban that you could impose.”
“There’s no need to stop him from paying his Xcel bill on his home computer,” Welling observed. “Why couldn’t these terms and conditions be more constrained? More targeted toward protecting public safety?” . . .
Ultimately, the appellate judges decided probation inherently involves restrictions on a defendant’s liberty.
“To be sure, Landis did not use the internet in attempting to sexually assault” the victim, wrote Davidson, a retired judge who had replaced Welling on the panel by the time the opinion was issued. “However, he engaged in sexual conduct with a child, and it was reasonable to place restrictions on Landis’s use of a medium that easily can be used to facilitate contact with children.” . . .
In response to the ruling, Sandy Rozek, communications director for the National Association for Rational Sex Offense Laws, questioned whether there were any data supporting the notion that a person would reoffend using the Internet even if they had not committed the original offense with a computer.
“It reminds me of a joke about a game warden who was going to give a ticket for fishing without a license to a woman who was sitting in her husband’s boat, tied to the dock, reading a book,” Rozek described. “She said she wasn’t fishing. He said, ‘Boat, rods, bait; you’ve got all the equipment here and could start fishing any minute.’ She then informed him she would be charging him with rape. When he protested that he hadn’t touched her, she said, ‘Yeah, but you’ve got all the equipment. How do I know you wouldn’t start any minute?'”
The case is People v. Landis.
9 Thoughts to “NARSOL quoted in reference to umbrella internet policy for those on probation in CO”
Who are the courts and the law factually protecting here, the public or the reputation of internet infrastructure as a safe place? The state and court each concede the defendant had not been proven to have misused the machine infrastructure! Misuse of the database driven infrastructure is rampant these days so his individual exclusion will have little effect on overall risk to the public, but certainly covers the backsides of public officials in state’s DOC\DPS agencies in an overbroad prophylactic manner in effect protecting corporate properties first while the general public implicated only as a collateral matter. Banning the Former President of the United States has already occurred by a Big Tech firm. The firm took the ride to the top with his posts and then dumped The former President of the United States outright! Think about that NARSOL as you size up the competition.
Tim, your posts are being allowed, but you are skating very close to being in violation of the fourth condition for comments. Please read them all, especially that one.
I simply skirt the rules, per the examples of our leadership. If i wasn’t listed for life without reason why bother at all. As advertised, I will act like a lifer, except I’ll win when they drag me in for FTR.
I can agree that the blanket restrictions are completely unfounded in merit, rather it’s automatically assumed that anyone with a sex offense is beyond control to lure a child into a setting of their own desires. I don’t know about everyone here, but the individual the court labeled as a victim saught me out. I had a part in what occurred, but I also defended myself when it came to it. The last words from my now ex to me was “don’t you know that girls always win in court? They are always innocent”. This was stated through laughter. Now, past everything I’ve gone through, I am stuck on parole. The courts determined through trial and the facts of everything that I am NOT a court determined predator. This is stated on my registration. However still, to this day I’m unable to even go to the State fair because someone somewhere deemed that action to be unsafe to all children for me to be there. Nevermind that I’d be in crowds of people and with family, brother and sister. So just participating in society and trying to get on with my life is impossible as just being at the fair would land me in prison. Nothing about parole has any merit towards public safety. It’s all 1000% about control and pounding it into my heads that I’m trash and not welcome in society. I know I’ll never date not because I refuse to, but because I won’t drag a girl down with such shame as being drug into the PO’s office for their series of questions regarding her, her past, her family and our intimate moments together and what kind of sex we plan on engaging in, and if we had, that the office wasn’t notified of it, therefore it’s a parole violation. All this control is absolutely disgusting, sick, criminal and downright evil. How these people in registry and parole compliance get away with the continual harm of people’s lives is beyond me. They’ve all drunk the kool-aid that they are doing the community good.
In federal court this will be destroyed. It happened in the 4th district in a similar a case. While you are in prison, they can’t violate your First Amendment rights unless it’s directly related to the security of the facility. How can they do it when you’ve living out in the world?
As usual, this is just more junk from the State. I hope this goes on up the judicial ladder and shows these clowns what the deal is.
And just how do you think it’s going to get that far? These fights take money, and the powers to be over this entire sham know it. That’s why this thing is such a monster, it’s all driven by money. The more this goes on, the more I’m gaining the mindset that sexual arousal needs to be addressed in a much better way, albeit education. But the total destruction of lives for a simple touch by 2 aroused individuals should be outlawed. I understand there are situations that are wrong, but judges need better tools than blanket mandatory minimums and twisting of events to fit a narrative to fill jails.
This will hopefully be appealed to the CO Supreme Court which is the next step here if they don’t go Fed first but would be going back to square 1 and restarting.
This story about fishing is representing how folks see the truth in this time of changes we are experiencing. If I had known this story, we would have used it innour son’s defense. It us brilliant.
internet restriction should itself be criminalized because eyewitnesses purged from a case brought by a gang infested nightshift’s favorite prostitute could be identified through a facebook search.