In People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, the California Supreme Court modified a probation condition that prohibited the defendant from purchasing or possessing pornographic or sexually explicit materials as defined by the probation officer. The Court explained, "Materials deemed explicit or pornographic, as defined by the probation officer, is an inherently subjective standard that would not provide defendant with sufficient notice of what items are prohibited." (Id. at p. 1353.) The Court modified the condition to state that the defendant was "prohibited from purchasing or possessing pornography or sexually explicit materials, having been informed by the probation officer that such items are pornographic or sexually explicit." (Ibid.) The Court considered a nearly identical probation condition requiring Pirali "'not to have access to the Internet or any other on-line service through use of his computer or other electronic device at any location without prior approval of the probation officer.'" (Id. at p. 1344.) Pirali challenged the condition as vague and overbroad. The panel in Pirali rejected the overbreadth argument, noting that Pirali could still access the Internet by obtaining approval from his probation officer. (Id. at p. 1350.) Second, the panel acknowledged that the condition would be unconstitutionally vague in the absence of a scienter requirement, and the court modified the condition accordingly. (Id. at pp. 1350-1351.) The panel upheld the condition as modified. In Pirali, the Court considered a probation condition ordering Pirali "'not to purchase or possess any pornographic or sexually explicit material as defined by the probation officer.'" (Pirali, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 1344.) The court held: "Materials deemed explicit or pornographic, as defined by the probation officer, is an inherently subjective standard that would not provide defendant with sufficient notice of what items are prohibited." (Id. at p. 1353.)