Chat with AI
Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law Today 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller
Edition 10ISBN: 978-1305075443Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law Today 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller
Edition 10ISBN: 978-1305075443 Exercise 2
Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County, Indiana
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 705 F.3d 694 (2013).
FACTS John Doe was arrested in Marion County, Indiana, and convicted of child exploitation. Although he was released from prison and was not on any form of supervised release, he was required to register as a sex offender with the state of Indiana. Under an Indiana statute that covered child exploitation and other sex offenses, Doe could not use certain Web sites and programs. Doe filed a lawsuit in a federal district court against the Marion County prosecutor, alleging that the statute violated his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Doe asked the court to issue an injunction to block the enforcement of the law. The court held that "the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a significant state interest" and entered a judgment for the defendant. Doe appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
ISSUE Does an Indiana statute that prohibits a convicted sex offender from using social networking Web sites violate the First Amendment?
DECISION Yes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court's judgment in favor of the county and remanded the case for the entry of a judgment for Doe.
REASON An Indiana law prohibits sex offenders from knowingly or intentionally using a social networking Web site or an instant messaging or chat room program that "the offender knows allows a person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age to access or use the Web site or program." The appellate court pointed out that this statute clearly implicated Doe's First Amendment rights. "It not only precludes [prohibits] expressions through the medium of social media, it also limits his rights to receive information and ideas."
The government of Indiana agreed that there is nothing dangerous about Doe's use of social media "as long as he does not improperly communicate with minors." But because illicit communication comprises a tiny part of the universe of social network activity, "the Indiana law targets substantially more activity than the evil it seeks to redress." The appellate court further pointed out that Indiana has other methods to fight inappropriate communications between minors and sex offenders. The Indiana statute was deemed over inclusive. A law that concerns rights under the First Amendment must be narrowly tailored to accomplish its objective. The blanket ban on social media in this case did not pass this test.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS-Social Consideration Could a state effectively enforce a law that banned all communication between minors and sex offenders through social media sites? Why or why not?
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 705 F.3d 694 (2013).
FACTS John Doe was arrested in Marion County, Indiana, and convicted of child exploitation. Although he was released from prison and was not on any form of supervised release, he was required to register as a sex offender with the state of Indiana. Under an Indiana statute that covered child exploitation and other sex offenses, Doe could not use certain Web sites and programs. Doe filed a lawsuit in a federal district court against the Marion County prosecutor, alleging that the statute violated his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Doe asked the court to issue an injunction to block the enforcement of the law. The court held that "the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a significant state interest" and entered a judgment for the defendant. Doe appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
ISSUE Does an Indiana statute that prohibits a convicted sex offender from using social networking Web sites violate the First Amendment?
DECISION Yes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court's judgment in favor of the county and remanded the case for the entry of a judgment for Doe.
REASON An Indiana law prohibits sex offenders from knowingly or intentionally using a social networking Web site or an instant messaging or chat room program that "the offender knows allows a person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age to access or use the Web site or program." The appellate court pointed out that this statute clearly implicated Doe's First Amendment rights. "It not only precludes [prohibits] expressions through the medium of social media, it also limits his rights to receive information and ideas."
The government of Indiana agreed that there is nothing dangerous about Doe's use of social media "as long as he does not improperly communicate with minors." But because illicit communication comprises a tiny part of the universe of social network activity, "the Indiana law targets substantially more activity than the evil it seeks to redress." The appellate court further pointed out that Indiana has other methods to fight inappropriate communications between minors and sex offenders. The Indiana statute was deemed over inclusive. A law that concerns rights under the First Amendment must be narrowly tailored to accomplish its objective. The blanket ban on social media in this case did not pass this test.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS-Social Consideration Could a state effectively enforce a law that banned all communication between minors and sex offenders through social media sites? Why or why not?
Explanation
Verified
Verified
Facts:
The person JD was detained in MC and was convicted of child exploitation. After the release, JD was required to register himself as a sex offender with the state. After registration, person JD was ordered not to use social websites and programs. After knowing the conditions, person JD sued MC prosecutor claiming that his right to freedom was violated.
Reasonable restrictions:
The country can be democratic only if it provides freedom of speech to its citizens. But these freedoms of speech either oral or written are subject to certain reasonable restrictions. It is the duty of the government to strike the balance between the obligations imposed by the government in order to protect the rights of the citizens and exercise of the rights by the citizens.
Outcome:
Any rule and law can be enforced by the government only if it is in the interest of the public. Therefore, in order to ensure the safety of the minor, it is important that the state can impose a law that may ban the communication between sex offenders and minor. But the law should be imposed in such a manner that it does not obstruct the communication between parent and child in case parent is a sex offender. Thus, it can be concluded that the law should be enforced in such a manner that it protect the interest of the parent as well as the safety of the minor.
The person JD was detained in MC and was convicted of child exploitation. After the release, JD was required to register himself as a sex offender with the state. After registration, person JD was ordered not to use social websites and programs. After knowing the conditions, person JD sued MC prosecutor claiming that his right to freedom was violated.
Reasonable restrictions:
The country can be democratic only if it provides freedom of speech to its citizens. But these freedoms of speech either oral or written are subject to certain reasonable restrictions. It is the duty of the government to strike the balance between the obligations imposed by the government in order to protect the rights of the citizens and exercise of the rights by the citizens.
Outcome:
Any rule and law can be enforced by the government only if it is in the interest of the public. Therefore, in order to ensure the safety of the minor, it is important that the state can impose a law that may ban the communication between sex offenders and minor. But the law should be imposed in such a manner that it does not obstruct the communication between parent and child in case parent is a sex offender. Thus, it can be concluded that the law should be enforced in such a manner that it protect the interest of the parent as well as the safety of the minor.
Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law Today 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller
Why don’t you like this exercise?
Other Minimum 8 character and maximum 255 character
Character 255
