Parole officers did not violate the First Amendment when they enforced a ban on the possession of pornography by a paroled sex offender, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

“Although a series of strongly-worded opinions by this court and others suggest that the term ‘pornography’ is unconstitutionally vague,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court, an illustrated book found in the possession of parolee Christopher J. Farrell fell within “any reasonable definition of pornography” and the parole condition was not unreasonably vague as applied to Farrell’s conduct.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]