U.S. Supreme Court strikes down sex offender social media ban

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday moved to buttress free speech rights in the digital age, striking down a North Carolina law banning convicted sex offenders from Facebook and other social media services that play a vital role in modern life.

The court, in an 8-0 ruling, handed a victory to Lester Packingham, a registered sex offender due to a statutory rape conviction who had challenged the law as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

"This case is one of the first this court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet. As a result, the court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court.

The North Carolina law, enacted in 2008, made it a felony for people on the state's sex offender registry to use online services that can lead to social interactions with minors.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-socialmedia-idUSKBN19A1ZB

---

SUPREME COURT | Mon Jun 19, 2017 | 11:10am EDT
By Lawrence Hurley | WASHINGTON

[Dawson Leery]

1. kick

[SpankMe]

2. 8-0. It didn't say who didn't vote.

Perhaps Gorsuch wasn't in on it because the case first entered the Supreme Court docket before he was on board?

In any case, 8-0 is rare and beautiful. I agree with the ruling. It seems almost any crime these days gets you banned from the Internet in some way. I'm glad to see this ruling since any offender can simply create fake accounts wherever they want and sneak access at Starbucks. Banning such offenders form the Internet does nothing to prevent them from using it to pursue their prurient or criminal interests.

[onenote]

7. Gorsuch did not participate

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf

[underpants]

3. Facebook and other social media services that play a vital role in modern life.

I'm on Facebook but I would call it vital.

[Blue_Adept]

4. There are employers that won't hire if they can't check your social media existence

Granted, probably not the same places that a registered sex offender will look, but they're talking social media in general and noting certain places. Some businesses can only be contacted through facebook and other services that sell things similar. And depending on how the law is read you can see them isolating off other sites like ebay and craigslist as well and then you're really in the weeds for getting things done.

[underpants]

5. Okay. Thanks. Didn't know that. N/t

[Jake Stern]

6. I have had prospective employers AND landlords

demand that I open up my Facebook for their inspection. Luckily Colorado got around to passing a law which prohibits that at least for workplaces.

[Blue_Adept]

9. Yeah, i'm certainly not in favor of them having the ability to do that

I actually had one landlord ask for that before so I just gave them my diary where I had written a slew of erotic stories and said that's about the equivelant of what I post online. So, have at it.

[Skittles]

10. what if you never joined that piece of shit borg?

[Jake Stern]

11. Asked that once

They looked at me as though I asked them to prove God exists.

[Skittles]

12. I have an extensive online presence

it just does not include Facebook or Twitter

[EllieBC]

14. Back in the before time when it was MySpace, I asked my then employer

who was a fan of creeping the MySpace pages of potential employees what she would think if the candidate didn't have a MySpace. She said that candidate would go in the "nope" pile. I told her that was the most stupid thing I had ever heard.

I didn't stay there very long. That kind of creepiness and stupidity was too much to handle. And I had a MySpace lol.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. Here's a link to the opinion:

Today at the Supreme Court: Live blog of orders and opinions - June 19, 2019

PACKINGHAM v. NORTH CAROLINA

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG,
BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, J.,
joined. GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the
case.

[Doug the Dem]

13. Facebook Sucks

or Zucks, if you prefer. Either way, it's FAR from being vital. Same with Twitter. I remember us doing fine without EITHER.

[J_William_Ryan]

15. Facebook

may or may not be ‘vital,’ but that’s not for government to decide.