Supreme Court: Court adds five new cases to docket

… Among the court’s other grants today, Packingham v. North Carolina is the case of Lester Packingham, a North Carolina man who became a registered sex offender after he was convicted, at the age of 21, of taking indecent liberties with a minor. Six years after Packingham’s conviction, North Carolina enacted a law that made it a felony for registered sex offenders to access a variety of websites, from Facebook to The New York Times and YouTube. Packingham was convicted of violating this law after a police officer saw a Facebook post in which Packingham celebrated, and gave thanks to God for, the dismissal of a traffic ticket. The justices today agreed to review Packingham’s contention that the law violates the First Amendment.



Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Breaking news… US Supreme Court to hear an Internet case! They have decided to hear the challenge by our side, Packingham v. North Carolina, the challenge to the North Carolina criminal bar on access to social media for sex offenders.

Not sure when the case will be heard, but please make sure that all pertinent parties are notified of this, and work out briefs in support of this challenge. The Ninth Circuit case, in particular, should be part of this as well if possible.

You are correct, Eric. The U.S. Supreme Court today granted cert in a First Amendment case involving a registered citizen. Below is basic information about that case including its prior ruling.

Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194

Ruling Below

N.C., 777 S.E.2d 738, 2015 BL 366550, 98 CrL 141

Summary of Ruling Below

A North Carolina law that bars registered sex offenders from accessing social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter doesn’t violate the First Amendment, either on its face or as applied to the defendant, who was convicted under the law for having a Facebook page. The statute is narrowly tailored to serve the substantial governmental interest of protecting minors from sex offenders and leaves available ample alternative channels of communication.

Question(s) Presented

Under this court’s First Amendment precedents, is a law permissible on its face that makes it a felony for any person on the state’s sex offender registry to “access” a wide array of websites—including Facebook, YouTube, and—that enable communication, expression and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is known to allow minors to have accounts, and is the law permissible as applied to the defendant, who was convicted based on a Facebook post in which he celebrated dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring “God is Good!”

There’s a difference between current and former
NYCLU decided it would fail for current
Issue: Whether, under the court’s First Amendment precedents, a law that makes it a felony for any person on the state’s registry of former sex offenders to “access” a wide array of websites

The state clings on to their ideology that recidivism rates mean nothing, “because sex crimes are under-reported,” because the rates of re-conviction don’t support their desired outcome.

Was the guy on probation..???

I find it curious the court wants to hear a case it has supported in previous rulings. The prediction is they will uphold it again, since all other cases have regulatory punishments attached as well. I see no other reason for their acceptance of the case, because to invalidate the statute would be a complete departure from their prior rulings, and of the registry. They can use any number of acceptable legal precedents, it is not compelled speech, it does not limit excessive speech, you are not citizens-you are evil garbage, we determine your rights-if any, it does not infringe on the right of expression, there are numerous alternative firms of speech, states can do whatever they want to do to you-who cares, we will never hear the case out of Michigan and the 6th Circuit-they are not real American’s, because real American’s want you all out of the country on a deserted island, why can’t you just accept the inevitable fact the constitution is meaningless to us, we have the power, we only took this case to give you a glimmer of hope, and then we will crush it again, you sickos, lol. We hate you, don’t you get it by now? Are you stupid or what? Why don’t you try religion, involuntary servitude, bills of attainder, we will shoot them down too. Lol. Your attempts are a waste of time, maybe when we are all gone, think again, you whackos. Wahaha hahahaha!

The good people of north carolina your public servants keep making wrong decisions.
This is another massively wrong and bad decision north Carolina::Going Against the Constitution.
The world will know how lame north carolina is to civil rights as other citizens and businesses ALREADY know.

After this ruling…the north carolina motto on auto license plates will be:
north carolina the dumbest state.

North Carolina Supreme Court’s “ample alternative”:
“You may not purchase your gasoline at Arco, 76, Chevron, or BP. Registrants may only purchase gasoline at Johnboy Walton’s Truck Stop & BBQ Pit twelve miles outside of town, off State Road 50 (only open on weekends)!”
Clearly, the movie “Idiocracy” is based in the reality of North Carolina!! 😲

Just as a recap, here is the link to the full NC Supreme Court debacle decision…

The opinions are a bit sketchy, but the dissent is scathing, so that is fairly good news.

The attorney for the defendant, Glenn Gerding (who is also a retired Navy JAG; rank of O5-Commander), doesn’t appear to be incompetent per se, but has never addressed constitutional issues with regard to registrants before. I hope that Janice not only can attend oral arguments, but can convince Gerding to research how the federal courts have been listening to pertinent arguments with regard to anti-constitutional registrant laws.

My opinion is that a case that hits SCOTUS belongs to ALL of us, in the sense that we will experience the fallout one way or the other, and therefore have not just a right, but a duty to try to prevent a bad desicion from taking hold.

We need the combined power of Janice, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to overturn this unconstitutional law.

Let’s hope the less-than-full court as it is today does not get impacted by the minus 1 it has on ruling on this because of political idiocy starting with the VP’s speech years ago when he was in the Senate for no particular reason other than grandstanding and the follow through of the Senate since then. I truly believe Justice Scalia would say in favor of this gentleman, the state is wrong.

As laid out, NC is in err here and SCOTUS should strike this law against expression down where the intent was of gratitude, praise and nothing more.

Everyone should listen to the webinar on RSOL (under Media/Webinars) featuring Prof. David Post, an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute (think tank founded by the Koch brothers, so normally very conservative) and a former Professor of Law at the Temple University Beasley School of Law, one of the Amici Curiae, who presented this brief to the Supreme Court in support of Packingham:

Both the RSOL online discussion and the brief are brilliant and give me hope.

The counsel for the Amici Curiae is in LA, so maybe Janice could work through this office to offer input from the trenches.


Quote from page 2, introduction, (11 of 33) of NACDL Amicus , Esquivel. You know, the “other” sex offense case granted cert…..”California penal section 261.5(c) -which criminalizes consensual sexual conduct that is not even criminal in 43 States and punishable as a felony in just three – ranked as aggravated..” just dig a little further in this SCOTUS Blog article (that shows

During the Spanish and English inquisitions a person was required to appear in a religious court to answer charges issued by the state of their belief and acceptance of the existence of a god and the right of the state to enforce the belief. In our case, we have to appear in a court, police station, or by a substitute for a police officer through a registration form mailed to our homes.

We must then answer the charges of the states belief and acceptance that we are a threat to the general public. Like the Inquisition if we do not answer, we will be punished by imprisonment. Even if we do answer, we have essentially been forced to agree with the states belief.

Are we or are we not subject to the laws of the European inquisitions? Of course we are, and yet it stands despite all if the laws of the u.s. constitution asserting their unlawfulness. If you think that law still exists in this garbage dump of a nation, you can kiss my @$$. European law sucks, and so does Europe.

Most of us can’t comment on the one sided and obviously misguided intenet news because you need a Facebook in order to comment. Nor can we respond to all of the other commenters of internet news articles. We can’t voice our American opinions because for 90% of the news sites, one needs a Facebook in order to comment. ENOUGH SAID??

I’ve got a sumshush respy for peach cobbler, yall. Looks like will have to nar’ly taylor are disgushuns to food from now on.

To Timmr

Like your style, lol. You know, I was thinking about the Inquisition comparison in regard to the establishment of a religion cause of action. Seems to me we are the only folks required to pass a litmus test to get our citizenship back; both in regard to our character and competency. I believe this would be a major question related to a loss of citizenship claim under say Trop v U.S., he was a soldier that deserted during wartime and they tried to have his citizenship revoked. Under the Sora laws our citizenship is also revoked or suspended. But the scrotus ruled this unlawful.

Something doesn’t add up here. The government uses facebook all the time to track criminal activity. Why wouldn’t they want us to use it, — they are already monitoring those of us who use it — to catch us committing crimes? Isn’t that what the bulk surveillance program is all about?
Oh, I get it, registrants aren’t committing crimes on facebook, so they got to make up a crime they CAN arrest us for: existing on facebook.
You exist, therefore you’re guilty. You’re prosecuted and it looks like the government is doing something to save children, while padding recidivism rates.

NorthCarolina the Deprivation of Civil Rights state.
Should be seeing that on that states license plates motto.
Oooooooh. !

Like I’ve said before, the north should have never given them or the south their freedom after the civil war, they’re as bad today as they were then. Charge them with sedition and hang em all.

Since when did it become an acceptable practice to create laws with severe punishment that are designed solely to prevent you from committing a crime that already has a sever punishment?

Doesn’t that go against “innocent until proven guilty” for future acts regardless of any past crimes?

Also, these laws only negatively impact law abiding citizens because those who are going to use the web sites for illegal purposes will do so anyway, and without reporting the activity in states that don’t forbid it but require disclosure of all social usernames and posts.

This would be like making it illegal for a convicted drunk driver to go into anyplace that sells alcohol or where alcohol can be consumed, or requiring them to immediately inform law enforcement when they take a drink so the cops can set up a trap to catch them drinking and driving. The alcoholic isn’t going to report it any more often than they take the precaution of giving their keys to the bartender.

The laws are far from “narrowly tailored” as well. Just like IML doesn’t target those convicted of international sex tourism, these laws against free speech do not target those convicted of luring a minor on a social media site. It tosses everyone with a sexual component to the crime into one huge basket.

Also, this is yet another perfect example where this restriction, and the registry as a whole, should have been attacked as a violation as a “Bill Of Attainder”. Even though it wasn’t, the arguments that previously won against a Bill Of Attainder are applicable to this case.

Please read this text below, and I am sorry I don’t have the source but it should be easy to find:

United States v. Brown
In Brown, the Court’s analysis goes further to expand the concept of
punishment and specificity in finding a bill of attainder.The statute at
issue made it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an
officer or employee of a labor union. Instead of laying out particular acts
that would disqualify a person from specific employment, Congress made
the determination that members of the Communist Party possessed certain
feared but un-enumerated characteristics, which made them more likely to
“initiate political strikes” against the U.S. Government. “The command of
the Bill of Attainder Clause [is] that a legislature can provide that persons
possessing certain characteristics must abstain from certain activities, but
must leave to other tribunals the task of deciding who possesses those
characteristics.” Moreover, there needs to be a “demonstrable
relationship” between the aims Congress sought to avoid, the individuals
who would carry out those aims, and the characteristics of the target group.
The Court determined that no legitimate relationship existed because even if
Congress had good reason to believe that some Communists would use their
positions in unions to bring about political upheaval, “it can[not]
automatically be inferred that all members share their evil purposes or
participate in their illegal conduct.”7 6 Further, in support of the Court’s
determination that no legitimate relationship existed, it drew contrast
between the current case and Board of Governors ofFederal Reserve System
v. Agnew,n a case where the Act in question was trying to prevent a
fiduciary conflict of interest.7 As such, Agnew illustrated a meaningful
distinction from section 504, which inflicted its deprivation “upon the
members of a political group thought to present a threat to the national
security.”‘ 9 Furthermore, the Court, believing that it would be antiquated to
limit punishment to only a retributive purpose, found it appropriate to
expand the meaning of punishment in order to “serve several purposes;
retributive, rehabilitative, deterrent-and preventative.”80 In doing so, the
Court relied on historical considerations that many English and early
American bills of attainder were enacted for preventative purposes.81 This
Court, like the one in Lovett, took the combination of factors together to
determine section 504 to be a prohibited bill of attainder.82

Two cops ambushed in Des Moines iowa, seems to me they were the wrong target, SCROTUS is the right target, since these people are so afraid they passed registry laws, maybe if they are really afraid they will get rid of them. See fear and violence can work.

Will this case allow any opportunity to correct the official statements in Smith V Doe 2003?

We need something to change precedent and stop courts from constantly referring to Smith V Doe as proof registered citizens are a huge threat and can’t be treated.

Here is what needs to be addressed and debunked from Smith V Doe:

The risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is “frightening and high.” McKune v. Lile, 536 U. S. 24, 34 (2002); see also id., at 33 (“When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault” (citing U. S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sex Offenses and Offenders 27 (1997); U. S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, p. 6 (1997))).