The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday over whether a man convicted of stalking may be barred from all social-media use throughout six years of extended supervision, a case that asks the justices to balance victim protection with constitutional limits on release conditions.
The case, State v. Jonathan James Petersen, reached the court after a state appeals panel upheld the condition. The Supreme Court's case synopsis says Petersen asked to modify the ban so he could use social media with permission from his supervision agent. A Kenosha County judge rejected that request, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Petersen pleaded guilty to stalking, false imprisonment and two counts of making terrorist threats with a dangerous weapon. The sentencing court imposed five and a half years of initial confinement followed by six years of extended supervision. According to the appeals opinion, the victim described repeated harassment through fake social-media accounts, and Petersen's lawyer initially agreed at sentencing that a no-social-media condition was appropriate.
The legal dispute is narrower than whether Wisconsin may regulate online activity by people on supervision. Petersen argues that a complete ban is broader than necessary and conflicts with First Amendment protections, especially because his proposed modification would preserve oversight by allowing access only with agent approval. The state responds that the restriction is tied directly to the conduct underlying the convictions and protects both the victim and the public.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the condition was reasonably related to rehabilitation and public protection. It also said Petersen had forfeited a direct challenge to the original sentence because he had agreed to the restriction, leaving the later modification request as the question before the court. The justices' hearing page identifies the central issue as whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to alter the condition.
The case arrives amid continuing judicial scrutiny of broad restrictions on internet use. Courts generally allow supervision conditions that target conduct connected to an offense, but blanket limits can draw closer review when they cover major channels for communication, work and civic participation. That context does not determine Petersen's case; it explains why the distinction between a categorical ban and agent-approved access matters.
For Wisconsin's corrections system, the ruling could clarify how much explanation judges must provide when online activity played a role in an offense and a defendant later seeks more limited access. It could also guide circuit courts deciding whether individualized controls—such as account disclosure, monitoring or prior approval—can address risk without prohibiting all use.
The justices did not issue a decision from the bench. The court's term overview notes that written decisions generally follow oral argument after internal deliberation. Until an opinion is released, the existing supervision condition remains in place.
