In United States v. Green, --- F.4th ---, No. 20-50257 (9th Cir. 2021), a divided panel affirmed the district court's revocation of Green's supervised release.
The majority held that by visiting an adult pornography website Green violated the condition that he could not "patronize any place' where sexually explicit 'materials or entertainment are the primary material or entertainment available."
The majority first concluded, "an individual can [] 'patronize' a business merely by visiting it, or in the case of media, by viewing or consuming it." It further determined, '"[p]lace” includes not only a physical location, but also 'an indefinite region or expanse.' A website qualifies as an indefinite region or expanse located in the digital realm." Thus, it held, [v]isiting a website primarily featuring pornography [] constitutes 'patronizing a place' under a contemporary and common sense understanding of those terms."
Judge Paez has a compelling dissent, which begins: "Clicking on a website does not, on its own, entail 'patronizing a place.'"
One other point to consider -- at least for me -- is whether the majority's interpretation that a website is a "place" could have Fourth Amendment implications in future cases. Food for thought.
