A teenager who was put on probation for molesting a 2-year-old, and restraining a 13-year-old, still can't have his rights to use social media taken away, a California Appeals court ruled.

The 15-year-old defendant, whose first name is given as Andre, was found guilty of holding the 13-year-old's arms while he ground his pelvis against her; and of touching the toddler's genitals. He was put on parole with a variety of conditions, including some relating to his use of computers.

Some of those computer-related conditions were unconstitutional, however, a panel of appeals court judges ruled last week. Andre's probation would have prohibited all computer use "unless supervised by a responsible adult over the age of 21 who is aware that the minor is on probation and of his charges." He was also banned from using "a computer for any purpose other than school related assignments," had to always be supervised while using a computer, and was barred from using Twitter or having "a MySpace page, a Facebook page, or any other similar page."

Those restrictions went too far, wrote the appeals judge in an opinion (PDF) first reported by CNET. Andre still has a First Amendment right to use the Internet; and any restrictions on his use have to be tailored to the crime—and his crimes had nothing to do with the Internet at all. "Absent any connection between Andre's criminal history and the blanket Internet ban, there is no support for the People's claim that it is properly related to future criminality." The trial court was ordered to modify the terms of probation, especially regarding use of social media and the blanket computer ban.

The constitutionality of restrictions on Internet use for adult sex offenders is also being tested in California right now. Proposition 35, which California voters just passed by an overwhelming margin, imposes new punishments for sex offenders, including a requirement that they disclose all their online identities—usernames, e-mail addresses, et cetera—to law enforcement. Yesterday, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order stopping those provisions from going into effect, after the ACLU and EFF filed a lawsuit challenging those parts of the law.