Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
probation, william hall

Companies:
facebook, myspace



Guy Loses Probation Because Court Decides That Facebook & MySpace Are 'Electronic Bulletin Boards'

from the definitions-matter dept

No link on this one because the decision isn't "published" and isn't online, but a court in Arizona has revoked the probation on a guy and sent him to jail for ten years, based on a debate over the classification of social networking sites Facebook and MySpace. Now, we should be clear upfront that the guy in question, William Hall, was convicted of some pretty seriously disturbing crimes and, as such, I have no problem whatsoever with him getting whatever punishment the courts decide is within the law. Specifically, the ruling notes that in October of 2010, "Hall was convicted of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor under the age of fifteen, a class three felony, and surreptitious photographing, a class five felony." This post in no way defends Hall. My interest is just in the specific legal reasoning behind the revocation of the probation. Part of the probation was that he was limited in how he could use a computer. The court didn't completely ban internet usage or computer usage (something we've argued is overkill), especially noting that he made his living doing web design. However, it did bar him from visiting specific sites. At issue was guideline #13 in his probation agreement, which says:
I will not use an electronic bulletin board system, Internet relay chat channel, DCC chat channel, instant messaging, newsgroup, user group, peer to peer (e.g.Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, etc).
However, the court (and the probation officer) argued that he violated this section because of his use of Facebook and MySpace. Hall notes that he used those sites to further his web design business and that he specifically told his probation officer that he was going to use those sites and was told that Facebook was fine and that it wouldn't be blocked. There seems to be some dispute over this, as the probation officer says that he believed that Facebook counted under the Guideline listed above. During the trial, there was the following exchange with the "surveillance officer" being the "S.O.":
Q: Can you show me where on [the Guidelines] [Hall] is not allowed to use social networking sites?

S.O.: Yes, No. 13. I will not use any electronic bulletin board system[s] and social networking [is] underneath bulletin board system[s] because [users] can post comments and that's what a bulletin board system is.

Q: The end of paragraph 13 it gives examples of Napster, Gnutella, Freenet. Does not say Facebook, does it?

S.O.: It is so broad. There [are] thousands and thousands.

Q: Everybody knows Facebook. It doesn't say Facebook, does it?

S.O.: This is a little older. It-but it's a category of bulletin board systems which is what all networking systems are.
Again, Hall has been convicted of a very serious crime, and there were a few other parts of the case that raise other questions (he moved without informing the probation officer properly, he was supposed to only have one computer but didn't get rid of his second computer, later on access to Facebook was blocked but he still tried to go there...). It may very well be that he deserves to be in jail. But, for whatever reason, the court first granted him probation, and if we're going to do that, then the rules for probation should be clear. If they didn't want him going to social networking sites, they should have been explicit that this included social networking sites. It wasn't like this happened in the early days of Facebook. He was convicted at the end of 2010. Facebook was huge (and MySpace had already grown and declined). The probation rules list out other specific names. It's ridiculous that they didn't simply add "social networking" or the specific names of Facebook and MySpace if they really wanted to forbid him from going to those sites. Either way, the lower court and now the appeals court (Arizona state courts) have both decided that Facebook and MySpace are covered by Guideline #13 despite the unclear language. At the very least, one hopes that Arizona will update its guidelines for the sake of clarity.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2012 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re:

    I'll agree that it get's fuzzy fast but I don't necessarily agree with your logic. Unfortunately there isn't enough here to actually formulate an accurate account of what happened. For example:

    First I'll agree that FaceBook qualifies as a BBS but if indeed he asked his PO beforehand and was given the OK then that should be taken into account. If they initially gave him the ok on it then determined it wasn't ok, did they directly inform him of the fact that the permission was rescinded or did they simply block him from access and not tell him. If they simply blocked him and he was unaware of this, attempts to troubleshoot an apparent issue could easily be misinterpreted as a willful attempt to circumvent a the block in direct violation of his terms. If he was going to do that, why would he have asked his PO in the first place? Like I said, we simply do not know enough of the details here to determine if he was treated fairly or not.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.