Patton is on probation is reasonably and directly related to deterring Patton from having contact with children and to protecting the public. See United States v. Zinn, 821 F.3d 1084, 1093 515-16. Just as in Patton, we conclude that the holding and analysis of Doe is inapplicable to Bratcher's challenge of his probation conditions. Additionally, we conclude that Bratcher's probation conditions 21 and 23 are neither overbroad or vague and that they are reasonably related to attaining the goals of rehabilitation and protecting the public Indeed, our Court has explained that because "child molesters molest l court did not err by restricting the defendant/child molester's gaccess to computers and online computer services). See also Harris v. State, 836 N.E.2d 267, 275 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. BARNES, J., concur. CRONE, J.,
holding that the defendantchild molesters probation conditionwhich restricted his internet access unless he had prior approval of his probation officerwas reasonably related to his reintegration into the community and to protecting the public holding that a parole condition which restricted a parolees access to the internet unless he had prior approval of his parole officer was reasonably related to reintegrating the parolee into his community and protecting the general public and did not violate parolees first amendment rights holding that the members of the dc parole board were entitled to absolute immunity against the claim that they violated the parolees constitutional rights when they failed to provide him with a timely parole revocation hearing holding that an internet restriction on a parolee reasonably related to the states goals of reintegrating the parolee into his community protecting the general public and preventing future crime does not unduly infringe upon the parolees first amendment rights holding parole officer could extract consent from parolees sister prior to parolees release