Surely Jack's case isn't about freedom of speech at all. The US Government didn't force him to take his site down. Surely it's about freedom of action - the freedom to go about his business and not be subject to absurd and impracticable restrictions such as staying ten yards away from minors.

I don't know anything about US law, but I would have thought there must be some sort of right to freedom of action protected by law.

What about his effective banishment from whole areas of California? I know there are laws against banishment - could they not be invoked?

And does not the judge who issued the restrainment order have to justify his action as being necessary and proportional?