Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Wiley Rein Adds New Partner to Intellectual Property Group | Main | Gray Haile Adds Two M&A Partners From Webster Dixon »

April 02, 2010

Comments

Jim Smith

The whole sentence is basically absurd. No injury occurred to anyone. The injury is completely imaginary.

Machinatious

Heck you can't even hardly buy postage anymore without using a computer. You surely can't keep up with political candidates. It's great the court saw part of this but they were certainly blind to the whole reality. It's all part of the media illusion that sex offender recidivism is extremely high. The reality is exactly the opposite. BUt if you can target one group whose rights you can diminish in the name of safety...it makes the next step...taking rights away from all American;s easier...

Bennie

This one instance that the one judge is on the wrong side of the issue. A 30 year ban is a burden, and it is an unnecessary inconvenience.

Only those afraid of computers and the technologically illiterate probably would not mind, but come-on it is an undue burden, it is a burden just like life time registry for someone who molested no one, raped no one, touched no one. Extreme laws are extreme.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements