by Catherine M. Gray, Associate Manuscripts Editor<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Just before Valentine\u2019s Day, a Racine County Circuit Court judge banned a Wisconsin resident from using the Internet for thirty months.1<\/sup><\/a> Jason Willis, a thirty-one year old resident of Waterford, created a Craigslist ad requesting \u201cnude male suitors\u201d using his neighbor\u2019s picture and address.2<\/sup><\/a> As one might imagine, Willis\u2019 neighbor \u201cDawn\u201d was shocked when several men arrived at her door, one wearing only a trench coat.3<\/sup><\/a> In banning Willis from the Internet, Judge Allen Torhost declared, \u201c[i]f you want to drive drunk, you\u2019re not allowed to drive. To me, a public availability of the internet [sic]\u2014to use it the way he did\u2014is unconscionable.\u201d4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n But did Judge Torhost\u2019s violate Willis\u2019 human rights? A 2011 United Nations report declared \u201cthat disconnecting people from the internet [sic] is a human rights violation and against international law.\u201d5<\/sup><\/a> While the report focused on the United Kingdom and France\u2019s efforts to block individuals accused of illegal file sharing and countries who would block Internet access to \u201cquell political unrest,\u201d it calls into question whether Judge Torhost\u2019s decision in some way violated Willis\u2019 fundamental rights in modern society.6<\/sup><\/a> In the United States, higher courts than Judge Torhost\u2019s have declared banning an individual from the Internet is an appropriate remedy.7<\/sup><\/a> Nevertheless, there is a question of whether, in a society and work industry so intrinsically linked to the Internet, banning an individual from being online constitutes a human rights violation. Will the individual be able to secure and maintain employment? Does the answer to that question really matter?<\/p>\n Despite the United Nations\u2019 assertion that the Internet is a human right, I\u2019m inclined to agree with Judge Torhost and the Eleventh Circuit here. Recently, Miranda Barbour admitted to killing more than twenty individuals across the United States, lured to their deaths through Craigslist.8<\/sup><\/a> The use of the Internet for the purposes of harassment, child pornography, and even murder does much to counter the U.N.\u2019s argument for a human right to the World Wide Web. In these cases, I see little wrong with banning convicted offenders from using the Internet, even permanently. Part of being a productive, contributing member of society is acting responsibly, and Judge Torhost got it right when he likened use of the Internet to driving. The Internet, like the driving, is a privilege, not a right, and abuse of a privilege means it\u2019s revoked.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1<\/a><\/sup> Cody Holyoke, Judge: Waterford man \u2018banned from Internet<\/i>, Today\u2019s TMJ4 (Feb. 11, 2014), http:\/\/www.jrn.com\/tmj4\/news\/Judge-Waterford-man-banned-from-Internet-245097211.html.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2<\/a><\/sup> Taylor Berman, Man Banned From the Internet for Sending Naked Men to Neighbor\u2019s Home<\/i>, Gawker (Feb. 13, 2014, 10:08 AM), http:\/\/gawker.com\/man-banned-from-the-internet-for-sending-naked-men-to-1522072855.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 3<\/a><\/sup> Id.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n 4<\/a><\/sup> Id.<\/i>\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n