NY Civil Liberties Union Argues Blanket Ban on Internet Access for Sex Offenders Is Unconstitutional
Rehabilitating people includes helping them reconnect, Biklen said, arguing that the law inhibits that process.
March 12, 2020 at 07:02 PM
2 minute read
Photo: Lifestyle discover/Shutterstock.com
In a suit filed Thursday in the Eastern District of New York, advocates argued that blanket bans on internet access for registered sex offenders under parole and post-release supervision in New York are unconstitutional.
"As a result of being unable to use the internet and social media, the plaintiffs struggle with the heavy burden of trying to navigate day-to-day life in a technology-dependent society," lawyers with the New York Civil Liberties Union, Rutgers Law School Constitutional Rights Clinic, and Prisoners' Legal Services of New York wrote in their complaint.
They sued the leaders of New York's Board of Parole and Department of Corrections and Community Supervision on behalf of six registered sex offenders, arguing that broad, non-tailored bans on access to social media and the internet violate the First Amendment.
None of the six men were convicted of crimes that involved the internet, according to the complaint, and yet all of them face complete or near-complete barriers to access after release from prison.
The complaint cites the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision Packingham v. North Carolina, which found that social media is an important public forum under the First Amendment.
Molly Biklen, deputy legal director of the NYCLU, said the North Carolina law struck down in Packingham was less broad than the current law in New York.
Since 2008, when the New York legislature passed the e-Stop law aimed at limiting social media access for registered sex offenders, Biklen said technology has evolved and become more pervasive.
"The way that the internet has now invaded every part of our lives … many people at their job, to clock in and out, you end up using internet-connected time software," she said, adding that the men have also needed the internet for tasks like banking and finding a place to live.
Rehabilitating people includes helping them reconnect, Biklen said, arguing that the law inhibits that process.
A spokesperson for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision said the department has not yet been served with the suit and cannot comment on pending litigation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
'You Became a Corrupt Politician': Judge Gives Prison Time to Former Sen. Robert Menendez for Corruption Conviction
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
- 2‘Diminishing Returns’: Is the Superstar Supreme Court Lawyer Overvalued?
- 3LinkedIn Accused of Sharing LinkedIn Learning Video Data With Meta
- 4Delaware Supreme Court Agrees Insurance Dispute Can Be Retried
- 5New Strategies For Estate, Legacy Planning
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
