SCOTUS: Court may strike law barring sex offenders from social media

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared likely Monday to strike down a North Carolina law that prohibits sex offenders from using Facebook and other social networking sites.

At least five justices suggested during argument that they would rule for North Carolina resident Lester Packingham Jr. He was convicted of violating a 2008 law aimed at keeping sex offenders off internet sites children might use. Packingham used Facebook to boast about beating a traffic ticket.

The state’s lawyer said the law deals with the virtual world in the same way that states keep sex offenders out of playgrounds and other places children visit. But several justices said the law was so broad that it could violate free-speech rights, even of people convicted of sex crimes. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 
task-attention.png
Please make all future comments on the subject here.
 

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Just a thought, if they are still avoiding revisiting the whole argument about whether or not registration is punishment, can they really make any other decision besides allowing us on social media?

Unfortunately, none of this prohibits companies from establishing “terms of service” that ban registered citizens… The state can’t ban access, but a “private” actor can.

Not good

Sttt and wrong yes it doesn’t address private companies however the argument could still be made against a private company where is the basis for it plus a business cannot discriminate unless they have proof that you were being disruptive and they would not be able to provide any proof that Bending see offender would be disturbing are harming their business by preying on minors not to mention the argument to be made that the private companies are not higher than states that if the states can’t do it neither can a private company do it