Ok a recap for the newbies

[admin]

PING FUCKING RETARDS AT THE POLICE AND STATE ~ It's looks REALLY, REALLY BAD WHEN YOU THROW SOMEONE IN JAIL FOR STATING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SUE YOU FOR DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, IN FACT IT KIND OF SHOWS THAT IS EXACALLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

[Guest]

NO TOAD. You are threatening acts of terrorism and posting sexual stories on the internet while violating the terms of your bond that you agreed to get bail that your Mommy paid. You are a child pornographer.

Without your parents, you would still be rotting in jail, which is where you belong.

---

Don't forget the profile picture you had when you posted that crosshairs image threatening your police chief and get him fired. And testified to by a decorated member of the Taylorville Police Department.

[admin]

again, where are sex stories you are talking about?? Decorative, right the same crooked fucking cops who aren't smart enough to investigate before throwing someone in jail. The same cops who are about to put this town in debt and bankruptcy after I get done suing their asses.

[admin]

... trust me I AM GOING TO SUE THEM ... Them and this fucking shit hole town will wish they NEVER HEARD OF MY FUCKING NAME!!

[admin]

One More thing social media is considered everything on the internet, (according to the US Supreme Court) which means the court is banning me from the internet. In Packingham v North Carolina (2017) the US Supreme court ruled that a court can do that, and they (a court) must take the first amendment into consideration, because first amendment applies to the internet.

[admin]

"the Court held that social media—defined broadly to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post, and WebMD—is a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech.

Justice Anthony Kennedy explained the decision: "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more."

"... sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge."

"It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government 'may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech'."

[admin]

Can a court restrict someone internet access while the person is on bail?

Response:

Yes, a court can restrict someone's internet access while they are on bail, but it would need to have a strong justification for doing so, as such restrictions can be seen as a significant infringement on First Amendment rights, and the court would need to ensure the restrictions are tailored to prevent specific potential crimes related to the charges against the defendant.

Key points to consider:

Specific concerns:

The court would need to demonstrate a clear reason why internet access could be used to interfere with the legal process, such as contacting potential witnesses, tampering with evidence, or planning further criminal activity related to the charges.

Tailored restrictions:

A complete ban on internet access is unlikely to be upheld; instead, courts might impose restrictions like blocking access to specific websites or social media platforms related to the alleged crime.

Legal challenges:

If a court imposes overly broad internet restrictions, the defendant could challenge them in court, arguing that they are overly restrictive and violate their right to free speech.
Examples of situations where a court might restrict internet access on bail:

Cybercrime charges:

If the defendant is charged with a computer-related crime, like hacking or identity theft, the court might restrict internet access to prevent further criminal activity.

Stalking or harassment charges:

If the defendant is accused of stalking or harassing someone online, the court might limit their access to social media platforms to prevent further contact with the victim.

[NO TOAD]

[LILY BY TODD DAUGHERTY]

again, where are sex stories you are talking about??

Per your request...

All the "newbies" here which include a wide range of "community members" have been sent copies of your child erotica stories you have written along with full evidence giving you full and complete credit you so much crave. 

I am not going to publish your child erotica stories so you can relive your child fantasies because they are sick. I'm sure you got copies of them along with the child porn you are being charged with on the cloud. And of course the FBI can do a simple text search and see those stories for themselves, you sick bastard.

[admin]

AGAIN, no child erotica is on this site, you are lying.