John Doe was convicted of child exploitation in Marion County, Indiana. After hi

Question

John Doe was convicted of child exploitation in Marion County, Indiana. After his release from prison, he was not subject to court supervision, but was required to register as a sex offender with the state. Under an Indiana statute that covered child exploitation and other sex offenses, Doe could not use certain Web sites and programs. Doe filed a suit in a federal district court against the Marion County prosecutor, alleging that the statute violated his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Doe asked the court to issue an injunction to block enforcement of the law. The court held that “the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a significant state interest†and entered a judgment for the defendant. Doe appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION
What is an injunction? What did the plaintiff in this case hope to gain by seeking an injunction?
THE SOCIAL DIMENSION
Could a state effectively enforce a law that banned all communication between minors and sex offenders through social media sites? Why or why not?

Explanation / Answer

Injunction is a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts. In this case, the plaintiff hoped to remove the restrictions on using certain websites and programs imposed under the Indiana statute by seeking an injunction.

The state could not effectively enforce a law that banned all communication between minors and sex offenders through social media sites. The state can enforce laws that affect the first amendment rights only if the restrictions are narrowly tailored to achieve the state’s interest. Here the law that bans all communication between sex offenders and minors may provide a certain level of safety, but it is not narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result. The law would prohibit all communication which may affect the personal relationships also as the offender cannot communicate with any minors including family members like son or daughter. The law would prohibit safe speech as well which may lead to clear violation of first amendment. Hence state could not enforce such laws that banned all communication between minors and sex offenders.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse J
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.