Earlier, Lawmeme had a story about a deep split in the courts over the propriety of Internet or computer bans as punishment or conditions of probation (Courts Split over Internet and Computer Bans).
Now the Seventh Circuit has come down firmly on one side of the debate. In the case of United States v. Holm, No. 02-1389, the Seventh Circuit has held that a post-release condition banning a defendant from accessing the Internet "sweeps more broadly and imposes a greater deprivation on [defendant's] liberty than is necessary," thus failing the requirement of US Sentencing Guidelines § 3583(d)(2) that post-release conditions be narrowly tailored to achieve the goals of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.
In Holm, the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography, which accounted for approximately 10-20% of the more than 100,000 pornographic images in his computer. Despite an incompetent appeal (which Judge Diane Wood repeatedly criticizes), the court found the defendant's arguments against the Internet ban compelling. As the court says,
We understand why the district court might have thought that a strict ban on all Internet use was warranted, but such a ban renders modern life--in which, for example, the government strongly encourages taxpayers to file their returns electronically, where more and more commerce is conducted on-line, and where vast amounts of government information are communicated via website--exceptionally difficult.
This decision is in line with precedents from the Seventh Circuit, as well as from the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits.
Get the opinion here. (Link via How Appealing.)