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 – including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com – that enable communication, expression, and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is “know[n]” to allow minors to have accounts, is permissible, both on its face and as applied to petitioner, who was convicted based on a Facebook post in which he celebrated dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring “God is Good!”
Related posts
-
NC: Appeals court rejects challenge to North Carolina sex offender registration law
Source: portcitydaily.com 8/12/24 Three judges on the Fourth Circuit of Appeals unanimously upheld the constitutionality of... -
NC: Warning about scam involving NC sex offender registry
Source: wsoctv.com 10/11/23 CALDWELL COUNTY, N.C. — The Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office is warning residents about... -
NC: Registered sex offender found living near school put on $100,000 bond
Source: witn.com 11/13/23 PITT COUNTY, N.C. (WITN) – Deputies with the Pitt County Sheriff’s Office say...
Is it a pertinent development that the new POTUS pretty much governs via Twitter and Facebook and shows no signs of giving up his toilet tweeting?
And the latest amici briefs continue to regurgitate the “frightening and high” nonsense. Sad!
How is it legal for the government, in briefs to the SCOTUS, to LIE about reoffense rates???? Is is ridiculous!
I’ve read those last two briefs listed supporting North Carolina and it doesn’t look good for us.
If the defendant doesn’t cut down Smith V Doe and Connecticut Dept of Transportation “frightening and high” crap we are in trouble. They also need to attack how this prevents free association and raising our own kids if we can’t use facebook.
They also need to bring up how the law only punishes law abiding Sex Offenders because those that want to molest children again won’t have a problem creating a fake email address to create a fake facebook page and there won’t be a way to catch them until its too late.
I wish this weren’t just one defendant but a class action so that less serious sex offenders would be involved and demonstrate how over-inclusive this is and how judges have been removed from the equation of ruling who should be treated like this.
Facebook, Twitter, et al should be avoided like the plague. Google the subject, and you will discover that social media has driven down the intelligence expenses of law enforcement, the FBI and the CIA. Like Adobe (known for the PDF file format), the government will never let Twitter and Facebook go out of business.
I like how the Government Respondent uses Sex Offender and Sexual Predator interchangeably.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/15-1194-respondent-brief.pdf
The First Amendment time, place, and manner test leaves States some lati-
tude to decide how best to protect the public from habitual sex offenders.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/15-1194_amicus_resp_louisiana.pdf
Habitual Sex Offenders? Was that a misprint on their AMICI CURIAE Brief?
I do enjoy the interchangable use of “sexual predator”, and “sexual offender”….last I checked, the law actually did differentiate between the two! Stupid me!
There is a compelling case to be made, that in today’s world that even the president uses social media as a way to communicate effectively to people. It is the new town square. In fact, how many town squares have parks that sex offenders are bared from.
I find it to be quite favorable to us that the government has chosen to base their case argument on the old established falsehoods. Far too many state attorney generals have been winning challenges by quoting the 2003 SCOTUS decisions and omitting up to date studies. This is changing in federal courts and will soon change in the high court as well. I believe we will prevail on this case.
Question: If we do prevail on this case, would this open facebook up to a legal challenge for their ban on registered citizens?
Its pathetic that these state officials just keep regurgitating the false facts and using under reporting as a valid argument in their responses and getting away with it without any type of vigorous response..My god these cases are just solidifying the governments hold on us and strengthening the precedents….How hard is it to provide arguments like I have in my motion at
http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
Please moderator post my link to my site.. People complained about me posting my long arguments on here so I created a site that they can choose to look at if they want so Please post it…
thank you………
Mike R, you need to read this brief for the First Amendment case and incorporate it into yours:
Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/15-1194_amicus-petitioner-NACDL.pdf
This is the BEST argument I’ve seen yet that could be used against ANY Sex Offender law, and the registry itself!
Please Read!
Wow Chris i just read those briefs and I am very impressed and encouraged about what the outcome of that individual case will be….I love the fact that they touch on the firearms issue because I have always thought the same thing..How can they take away such a fundamental right as the right to bear arms without any type of nexus between the offense committed or the actual dangerousness the individual poses.This has definitely gave me pause as to what else I should include in my motion because there is a lot of ammunition in those briefs…….
hey abolish be sure to read those briefs because they are touching on the exact issues your talking about…although they are not challenging or expressing that all of our rights should be restored after someone does their time they have provided an starting point for such an argument…they make a pretty good argument against all the collateral consequences of a felony conviction…
North Carolina: the unconstitutional state.
Auto plates state motto.
As Chick Hearn would say :
SlammmmmmmDUNK.
Our Constitution
Wins .
Reversed and remanded. Unanimous decision of the Court. Opinion by Kennedy.
The court rules that the NC statute impermissible restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
Praise God!