Chatting sex not register
The government offered a slew of narrowing constructions to different terms in the statute, but the court says that these suggestions further illustrated the vagueness underlying the statute.
For example, the statute banned “instant messaging” services—that were defined as services that enabled instantaneous text transmissions—but the State claimed that this did not include text messaging services.
The court was charitable toward the legislature, but at a certain point the snark just broke through: Without intending to be unkind, the fourth suggested construction is laughable.
It states that ‘virtually instantaneous’—for purposes of ‘instant messaging’ services or ‘chat rooms’—means ‘real time.’ What in the world does ‘real time’ mean?
[Post by Venkat Balasubramani with comments by Eric] Statutory schemes in three different states intending to regulating the online activities of convicted sex offenders have meet with judicial disapproval. The court notes that the ban is not dependent on any past use of utilities to commit crimes, or any particular online risk posed by the offenders.
Citing to an array of facts and figures regarding the ubiquity of social networks and utilities, the court says that the statute restricts the affected individuals from using “an enormous portion of the internet” to engage in expressive activity.
The ban is overly broad and violates the First Amendment.
Check out our chat rooms to see if any users from the USA are online. Lets say your not from the USA, No problem we welcome you anyways.