Judge to rule on sex offender Internet ban

11-3-2011 Louisiana:

BATON ROUGE — A constitutional question of whether the state's new law banning the use of certain Internet sites by sex offenders is in the hands of a federal judge.

A lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of two anonymous sex offenders challenges the constitutionality of the law, promoted as banning sex offenders who target children from using social media sites, such as Facebook and MySpace.

U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson on Wednesday took under consideration arguments by attorneys representing the state and the ACLU as to whether HB55 (Act 26) by Rep. Ledricka Thierry, D-Opelousas, violates First Amendment rights of such convicted felons. The law also includes those convicted of video voyeurism.

Jackson said he is concerned that "unchecked, the statute in its current form is constitutionally problematic."

Thierry, an attorney, contended during legislative debate that it was constitutional to ban access to sites that could be used to lure children. She said it was not her intent to ban the use of all sites, such as ones that could be used to find jobs and access news and other information.

ACLU attorney Justin Harrison, representing complainants John and James Doe — convicted sex offenders in East Baton Rouge and Iberia parishes — said the law is overly broad and applies to any website in which visitors can leave comments. He said that applies to newspaper sites and numerous others that have nothing to do with personal communications.

Jackson said it also appears to prohibit access to the federal court's website.

Assistant Attorney General Kurt Wall said Corrections Secretary James le Blanc has implemented rules that restrict how probation and parole officers are to enforce the law. The regulations define what kind of sites are off-limits.

But Jackson pointed out that the regulations do not apply to police and district attorneys, who don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections. Harrison contended that the law has "a chilling effect" because there is "a credible threat of prosecution" for visiting a seemingly harmless site. He said the law, in effect, bans sex offenders from using the Internet and limits their ability to obtain and hold jobs.

Jackson posed the question, "When is the law violated?" He asked if it is when an offender "accesses a site or when a proper authority discovers improper use of the Internet?"

Wall responded, "It's not what they're going on there to do. It's that they're there, period."

He reminded the court that there is a provision in the law that allows accessing sites if an offender asks a probation or parole officer or to the court where the judgment was rendered for an exception.

Harrison said that presents a problem because a sex offender "doesn't know if he's reached a prohibited site until he's there. By showing up, he's committed an offense."

The law says conviction of the crime of unlawful use or access of social media carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years. A second conviction requires at least five years in prison and a maximum of 20 years.

Jackson gave the attorneys until Nov. 23 to file final statements. He said he would issue a ruling after weighing those arguments. ..Source.. by Mike Hasten