What Do Court-Ordered Internet Bans Really Mean? 453
tcd004 writes "Chris Lamprecht, a.k.a. Minor Threat, was the first person to be banned from the internet back in 1995. Since then, the practice has gained popularity worldwide. In the last year, courts in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States have all banned people from the Internet. A British court recently banned a convicted pedophile specifically from entering chatrooms for 10 years. But how effective are the bans? Minor Threat contends that the rules governing his internet ban use were toothless. How much harder is it to keep people off the internet in an age when everything--from parking meters to refrigerators--comes with an IP address." (Note: the Globe and Mail story requires registration.)
Working globeandmail.com login (Score:5, Informative)
Login: CowboyNeal
Password: CowboyNeal
what I think it means is (Score:3, Informative)
Did you know? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Specific to anglo-american law system (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Specific to anglo-american law system (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Specific to anglo-american law system (Score:5, Informative)
Contempt of court (in the American System) has two forms of occurence and two forms of punishment. There are Direct (telling the judge to go fuck himself) and Indirect (disobeying a court ordered moratorium on proceedings) forms. The punishment can be either Criminal (jail time) or Civil (removal from the courtroom). Civil punishment ceases once compliance with the judge's orders are met, and Criminal punishment requires a trial, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I really don't see too much room for "pure arbitrariness", because Judges who act improperly can be censured, and federal judges can be impeached. Local judges are typically elected officials, so they have the same responsibilities to the public as say the sheriff, who has far more power.
I am sorry that you seem to think that it opens the door to "pure arbitrariness", but doesn't giving any position of power do the same? I would hope that we have enough faith in the judicial system that this small bit of power isn't so abused as to be to a net deficit?
Re:Did you know? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Terms (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You're Screwed Anyway (Score:2, Informative)
I would answer on job applications with that definition and I bet most people would too. If my potential employer wants to start asking questions about my speeding tickets, I'll tell them I'm not a lawyer and that when I was in high school that the term 'arrest' meant what most other people still know it to be.
Re:You're Screwed Anyway (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Perhaps lazy judiciaries and prosecutors? (Score:4, Informative)
I hope you don't live in Texas.
There, anyone, even you, could be a sex offender, and not even know it. [chron.com]
When the corruption of the system is so flagrant, I wonder if your personal choice holds any weight at all.
Re:I'm banned (Score:5, Informative)
fFor a time, this was enforced by him being under house arrest and a parole officer stopped by every now and then to check on things. at this point, his parole officer still comes by, by the inspections are much less stringent.
the answer to the topic here is: the courts dont really check so much. to wit, my example-person has perfectly good internet access on his mobile phone. his wife discreetly got an AOL account and logs in now and then. and of course he can swing by any public lab or internet cafe'.
now, officially, if the courts were asked fFor their stance on pedantry like the parking meter example, they would surely come out on the side of reason, stating the convicted may use anything without interactive connections to other users, or something delicately worded.
officially, of course, the "no internet" sentencing means just that: none. nadda. just as "no drug use" includes poppy seeds and sometimes caffeine.
Re:Specific to anglo-american law system (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Did you know? (Score:2, Informative)