What's New
Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion

Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.

Internet access is a right, judges rule

Jazzy

Wild Thing
Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Posts
79,918
OT Bucks
308,876
Appeal judges have overturned an order banning a voyeur from surfing the internet, saying it is entirely unreasonable for anyone to be denied web access in today's Britain.



Michael Jackson was convicted of using a secret camera to film a 14-year-old girl in the shower and banned from accessing the internet.



But in a ruling that effectively renders access to the internet as a human right, Appeal Court judges ruled it is unreasonable nowadays to ban anyone from accessing the internet in their home.



Jackson, 55, of Kent, doctored a shampoo bottle and hid his mobile phone inside it in order to take a surreptitious video of the girl as she showered.



He was arrested after the suspicious youngster spotted a flashing light in the bottle and investigating police found hundreds of sex images, featuring animals and children as young as four, stored on Jackson's computer.



Jackson was sentenced to a community order with three years supervision at Woolwich Crown Court in June this year.



He was also hit with a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO), banning him from owning a computer, using a camera in public, coming into contact with children at work and allowing the police to raid his home at any time.



Mr Justice Collins and Judge Nicholas Cooke QC, sitting at London's Criminal Appeal Court, overturned the strict SOPO, replacing it with an order that he simply make his internet history available for viewing by the police.



The court heard that the victim noticed a shampoo bottle with a hole in it and a flashing light whilst taking a shower and police were alerted when suspicion fell on Jackson.



His lawyers argued that the SOPO imposed by the Crown Court judge - which he said should last until the day Jackson died - was unnecessary and disproportionate.



Mr Justice Collins told the court: The judge imposing the SOPO said, 'I anticipate that you will die subject to this order - that is my wish anyway.' They were not appropriate remarks to have made.



Also criticising the lurid language used by the judge, he concluded that the SOPO imposed on Jackson was entirely excessive.



Nowadays it is entirely unreasonable to ban anybody from accessing the internet in their home, the appeal judge concluded.



Source



What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with the judge?
 
I agree with the judge on the internet part. If the idea is to keep him in society, then he's going to need internet. These days the internet is used for almost everything.



using a camera in public, coming into contact with children at work and allowing the police to raid his home at any time

^^that shouldn't have been made undone though.
 
Cranos said:
I agree with the judge on the internet part. If the idea is to keep him in society, then he's going to need internet. These days the internet is used for almost everything.



An internet can be used in a good way to keep a person in society, but it can ruin his life if he got addicted to a certain website or any online activity. I believe that internet lies under the Unnecessary goods And what I mean by unnecessary is that its not needed to keep a person alive and breathing, I mean that a person can live without it and experience no harm. So Internet is not a right, its a choice in my opinion.
 
In his case, it's not a human right for him. There are many people who get along in life perfectly fine without the internet. My Grandparent being an example. So I don't really think so. It's more of a privilege than a right, a privilege that Jackson abused and it should be revoked.
 
CommanderMadi said:
An internet can be used in a good way to keep a person in society, but it can ruin his life if he got addicted to a certain website or any online activity. I believe that internet lies under the Unnecessary goods And what I mean by unnecessary is that its not needed to keep a person alive and breathing, I mean that a person can live without it and experience no harm. So Internet is not a right, its a choice in my opinion.

For just about any higher education internet is an absolute must. For many jobs it's necessary, many banks only work online these days and even governments are starting to use it more and more. Economic studies show that even the normal newspaper is going disappear completely in favour for the online version. So yes, to be completely integrated in society you need internet (or at least you'll need it in 10-20 years). And you need to consider this was supposed to be for life.
 
Back
Top Bottom