If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
from the help-us-out-here dept
For many years we’ve questioned the logic of courts banning people from the internet for committing some sort of internet crime (mostly commonly sexual offenses online). Many courts have decided that it’s ridiculous to ban people from the internet in an era when the internet has become so integral to our lives and our jobs. And, as more content and services move to being online only, it gets even sillier. If you’re banned from the internet can you use a Kindle? What about a VoIP phone? It gets confusing fast. Luckily it looks like yet another court has thrown out an internet ban on a sex offender as draconian and a potential violation of the guy’s free speech and association rights.
While there’s been some split in the courts, it looks like many are starting to question such bans, given how ubiquitous the internet has become. And yet… just as this is happening, we have the entertainment industry pushing hard to kick people off the internet for a small number of accusations (not convictions) for file sharing. Seeing as the courts are already claiming that internet bans — even for online sex offenders — is too draconian, how can anyone justify an internet ban as being a fair and equitable “punishment” for being accused (not convicted) of sharing some music?