4 ms·
I don't follow your concerns on the headline. How is "a blanket ban on social media sites is unconstitutional" substantially different from "people can't be ban
by pflats 9y ago
I don't follow your concerns on the headline. How is "a blanket ban on social media sites is unconstitutional" substantially different from "people can't be banned from the internet"?
Perhaps we're reading it differently, but to me, the headline says "you can't be banned from the internet as a whole", not "you can't be banned from a narrowly-tailored subset of the internet".
- cptskippy 9y agoI think his point was the rule isn't in relation to prisoners who traditionally do not have free access to all of the resources a free person might.
- Fjolsvith 9y agoExactly. Prisoners lose a great many 'rights' when they are incarcerated. Internet access is one of those.
- maxlybbert 9y agoTo me the headline says "you can't be banned from any part of the internet for any reason," or, alternatively, "everybody has a right to access the internet." The actual ruling is much narrower: "it's unconstitutional to ban all sex offenders from accessing social media sites." The Court hasn't officially said anything about other people (e.g., current prisoners, people on probation, specific people convicted of computer-related crimes, etc.) or other sites on the internet. I was responding to the questions "With this supreme court ruling, how prisons in the US are going to allow inmates to have access to the real Internet? I mean you can not ban those inmates from accessing the Internet, right?"