I'm confused by your statement. If "Ban != Access" then what's preventing courts from simply denying access (not a "Ban" under your assertion above) to people outside of prisons as well?
My thinking was same as the parent. Preventing access would involve telling someone who owns a computer and could, for example, connect to public wifi, that they are not allowed to do that and will be punished for doing so.
I think this would be relevant to someone who has committed a crime using a computer and remains banned from using the internet even after finishing a prison sentence (like the kid in the movie Hackers). It doesn't sound like that can happen now.
Suppose a state doesn't bother to install an internet connection in the prison, and confiscates phones with mobile data. This is denying access.
Suppose someone is caught with an internet phone in jail and is hauled in front of a judge. If it's banned, then they can have their jail term increased.
Yea I understand the "If you're in prison" side of this but I feel like asserting "Ban != Access" makes the general public (i.e not in prison) side of this MUCH fuzzier.
