On the contrary, if Nolan were in a group home, he would be allowed to make choices, even if those choices were not an overall good for him. It would be similar to how you or I can choose to smoke or drink or gamble. If he wants to access the internet, even if we don't think that's the best choice to make, that would be his choice. In the event that someone else is elected to make choices on his behalf, that wouldn't extend to saying whether Nolan can or can't have internet.
The only reasons I can see for a disabled person not being allowed internet access, when cared for by a professional organization, is if giving access meant serious risk to himself or others. I don't think that describes Nolan.