computer use and possession ban believe it was overbroad this restriction for a number of reasons whoever sold it to the merits of that can we talk about the waiver issue that the government raises it's they  thirty five eighty three includes whether the restriction necessarily infringes on an individual's liberty interest first amendment free speech free association that's a little interest and it's one of the fundamental ones some sort of notification requirement that perhaps he gives twelve hours or twenty four hours notice or they have some sort of regular schedule he's working that's going to involve a computer that would have aided the use of the monitoring and searching conditions that were already imposed and of either of those were and we'll leave and perhaps the original restriction which is one where the probation office would have to basically prove of any internet usage that there's a problem with short term it would be appropriate particularly in the context of allowing the probation office either notice or approval of what you're doing on the internet a lot of this is actually taking care of by virtue of the finely if we're if if if we can't take those risks into account and keeping them away for a substantial period of time from a number of places and not just saying well the probation office can swoop in and tell him not to or keep a close eye on what his are on the internet and stop him when he goes too far well obviously there's a there's some practical difficulties with any of these things and they've all come they can all be circumvented i mean no matter what kind of a strict when you put on somebody must you're going to walk him up are told they can't meet a particular place or make sure insisting so much more finally tailored ones but if we're allowing them a computer there's a good argument for it but then how are we sure he's using the computer for certain uses and not others especially if that if the code was imperfect i mean there's a reason why the district co searching condition which allows the probation officer by the way of the conditions with him you were actually inconsistent in one place it says with reasonable suspicion another place it just says you come in take your stuff and search it so very fair enough but the but the question th bring him into compliance in your next logical step a complete ban for some period of time because he has shown in the bully to comply with whatever set of conditions you temporary ban for a temporary complete then for a period of time that i believe there might be circumstances where that would be appropriate i think obviously the district court have to make that determination in the first instance as it turns out mr horn to do to be released the court's concern was with sweeping restrictions it encompass both awful and i'm awful speech we think that would apply here around the kind of a restriction to encompass both lawful and unlawful speech secondly the standard is actually fairly close so it's whether it's mr lean is non compliance has occurred on two occasions substantial he is about to come out let's say it was two more be a circumstance which is substantial there's appropriate just as a general matter when you when you're when you're thinking about the integral nature of the internet and social media in our lives  eleven is that it's a ban on computer usage subject to approval by the probation office we're not sure why shouldn't we just may have that's confusing it's inconsistent make sense to clean it up now why don't we just send it back at least for that i think a limited remain as you're explaining me this is one option certainly but i think given the entirety of the special conditions it seems clear what jed brain was getting and interpretation of that  effect to some of the other special conditions the special condition about allowing for the computer monitoring software to be installed the special condition about limiting access except for reasons approved by the probation office going from the expires expressive language of the condition i agree that it would apply to a computer not connected to the internet and potentially not a smart home or was it all tailored how was it all related to the offense or  the need to protect the public from mr holy no i'm a couple responses to that first if the court adopts the what i think is the perfectly reasonable interpretation of the ban which would allow for the probation office to approve certain types of computer usage that doesn't require the probation office to engage in constant monitoring and allows for easy administration by precluding his possessing any type of computer is perfectly appropriate in these circumstances what does that mean course for filtering what is your understanding of the efficacy of the filter what's available and could that filtering extent to smartphones that the on the right i mean one of the alternatives to a complete ban on devices i'm not most of the cases are its essence is your proposal a lifetime ban exception of computer use proc about probation that's correct or are and how is that consistent with albert's and or with alberts and now right time being given the facts mr home has underlying offense in the reset of this conduct that occurred after he was released from prison support that type of band i think it's also telling that mr kelly not the not challenge a was not appropriate the facts of this case are much more egregious than alison and the other cases where the square is overturned lacy bans narrow couple reasons for that first in albertson and i think in all the other published cases where this court has overturned  man talking about child pornography offenses certainly very serious but this course court has made clear to distinguish child pornography offenses and the type of conduct that mr hamid engaged in attempting to induce a minor to engage in a sexual activity let's talk about the purpose of punishment thirty five fifty three thirty five a three incorporates all of them except for the retribution right so we have to worry about protecting the public which you talked about preventing future crime against that it does seem like a narrower base that could carvel you know just the use of the internet for clearly work purposes with no children involved would directed at a minor in this case an undercover agent but nonetheless mistakenly thought he was communicating with a minor that's different from the child pornography context that requires some place off the weekly it's off limits would be possible but find that this is part of protecting the public helps to draw some lines i think could play in that related searches and purposes would be inappropriate exception and in this context standing here right now i can't really think of  additional about shopping on amazon yes he is getting rides without without getting to that level of specificity i mean that i think that would be difficult i think it's difficult for the court to carve out exceptions that would include some of the websites that you're mentioning without also allowing mr going to have access to numerous other types of websites that are frequently accessed by minors and minors are frequently gauging communication on this was he has a code probation know it's important for the court also to consider that based on this court's case this records are left with very broad discretion in this area and that's one key difference between the argument that mr already that context but even intermediate scrutiny i think is very different from the standard this chris said it applies when reviewing special conditions or supervised release yeah but when you think about when you put packing him in context right i think what you take away from it is that there's got to be a really good reason why you want to keep someone's or narrow the scope of someone's access something that is so integral so intertwined into our modern life so what myself my colleagues want to hear is is there anything other than the obvious like clearly any sites that have anything to do  looking at because it would seem that with out something along those lines in mind it would have been this you know be overbroad and it would be violative of both packing him and th jurisprudence i would also ask the court to consider social networking type sites of course conscious of the fact that packing in found the north carolina statute was overly broad so yeah i think you do run into a line draw problem there i'm trying to gauge in the dialogue with the court but i think that suit it's important that that was a first amendment case applying constitutional intermediate scrutiny which is very different from the the d c circuit pointed out that back in him is dealing with post historial situations it's very different from what you have here the statute twenty two forty two that mr moreno violated would have allowed his incarceration for life i'm not saying a life sentence would have been  reasonable but i don't think that had he been sentenced to life in prison he would have been able to bring a first amendment challenge to that and so he for sure i he should be offering a first amendment challenge to a less restrictive term of supervision supervised release in this case on the radar one other thing i want to point out about the waiver type issue is because of all you can raise in the district court this courtroom you would only be for playing there i don't think even if there is a potential first amendment problem here that the air is clear and obvious in crandon this court rejected a first amendment claim similar to what mr ark is now trying to make in light of packing him and so i don't think there's really i think there is reasonable dispute about whether the first