You also cannot ban a PO box from being used for a mailing address should one want.

This is political season posturing at best.

1. United States v. Ellis (9th Cir. 2019): The court struck down a supervised release condition that banned all internet use, citing Packingham’s emphasis on the internet as a vital space for speech.
2. Minnesota v. Muccio (2021): A state court invalidated a law banning registrants from using certain apps, citing Packingham’s requirement for narrow tailoring.
3. Doe v. Nebraska (8th Cir. 2020): Packingham was used to challenge Nebraska’s law requiring registrants to disclose all internet identifiers, arguing it chilled speech and was overly broad. While no ruling was passed down, – In 2012, the District Court ruled that parts of Nebraska’s law were unconstitutional, particularly the provisions requiring disclosure of internet identifiers and restricting internet use, citing First Amendment concerns.

Maybe so but it is still a Violation of the first amendment right limit speech. Probation, Parole, conditional release, supervised release or not still a violation of rights. Especially if there is no due process and this would be a retroactive punishment on a sentenced already handed down. This would be Ex Post Facto since the above-mentioned situations are considered punishment.

This law would concern registrants on supervision (probation, parole, conditional release, supervised release, etc.). Not registrants who are NOT on supervision. There’s a distinction between this law and Packingham.

Polygraph is junk science.