The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that a North Carolina law which prohibits all registrants from accessing commercial social networking websites used by minor children violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“This is a tremendous victory for the registrants of North Carolina as well as registrants throughout the nation,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for the first time that registrants have First Amendment rights including the use of social media websites including Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.”
In its decision, the Court noted that the broad wording of the North Carolina law bars access “not only to commonplace social media websites but also to websites as varied as Amazon.com, Washingtonpost.com, and Webmd.com.” The Court also noted that “(e)ven convicted criminals – and in some instances especially convicted criminals – might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.”
The Court stated clearly their belief that the sexual abuse of a child is “a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people.” The Court also stated clearly that states may pass valid laws in order to protect children and other victims of sexual assault from abuse. The court then ruled that the North Carolina law did not legitimately serve the purpose of protecting children and others from abuse.
Also in its decision, the Court noted the “troubling fact” that the North Carolina law imposed severe restrictions on persons “who have already served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system.” The Court also noted that “(i)t is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used by persons who have completed their sentences.”
“We are encouraged by today’s wise decision of the U.S. Supreme Court,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein. “We are hopeful that this wisdom can be extended to other decisions in the near future.”
Although today’s decision was unanimous, three of the Court’s nine justices – Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas — entered a concurring decision which agreed that the North Carolina law violated the First Amendment, but focused upon the “grave risk” that repeat sex offenders pose to children. In their concurrence, the justices repeated the myth that registrants have a high risk of re-offense. Specifically, the justices stated that “(w)hen 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.”
“It is disappointing that three members of the U.S. Supreme Court continue to repeat a myth which has been disproved by decades of research,” stated Bellucci. “That research, including the findings of Dr. Karl Hanson, has overwhelmingly concluded that registrants have a very low rate of re-offense.”
Earlier version:
US Supreme Court strikes down NC sex offender social media ban
The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from using Facebook or other social networking sites that minors can join. Full Article
Related
Opinion analysis: Court invalidates ban on social media for sex offenders
Supreme Court says sex offenders can access social media
Supreme Court says even sex offenders get to use Facebook
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
Kennedy delivered the opinion Alito (surprisingly) concurred.
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.
So I guess we won 8-0. Sounds like a slam dunk if Im reading that correctly, I think its going to shut down the social media bans across the country. This lopsided opinion likely will keep states from making and enforcing similar laws in the future. I gotta keep reading to see what the opinion has to say.
Slam dunk baby!!! I just saw this on the 12pm mid day TV news and just had to run on here. Lol. Almost fell off my chair. Hopefully SCOTUS can keep knocking down the rest of the cases pending or anything else that comes their way related to us.
Now, if we can get IML to SCOTUS and maybe the registry?
“It is well established that, as a general rule, the Gov-ernment “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coali-tion, 535 U. S., at 255”
hopefully, this statement that was in the opinion can be used where states created laws requiring SO to provide user names, etc… as anonymous free speech is protected.
Justice has been served!
Amazing! An 8-0 ruling should be heard like a thunderstorm across the nation. I have a feeling this is the first of many SO laws that will be struck down.
Also, did anyone else catch the insanity in the final paragraph?
“In 2013, Gerding said one of his clients had not been able to attend his child’s T-ball games because of the restrictions. The client’s wife had planned to go to the game and use Skype so her husband could watch without being on the premises, but a sheriff told him that would violate the 2008 law.”
So the husband would be breaking the law by watching the game from home via Skype? What if the game was actually televised on a local station or his wife recorded the game for the husbands later viewing? This is nuts!
Finally SCOTUS Speaks Truth!
* * *
It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government
“may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.”
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,
535 U. S., at 255.
That is what North Carolina has
done here. Its law must be held invalid.
The judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court is
reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.
As Yehovah Lives, so should we
The hope for our future liberation lies in Kennedy’s statement: “Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.”
TROUBLING FACT. I’ll say it is!
Hopefully this will be an issue before the Court soon. Lawyers get moving; this sound like an invitation.
But keep in mind, Face book is a private provider and they currently have a policy that bans ALL RSO’s. It doesn’t matter if the conviction was a misdemeanor or a felony or if it was 2 months ago or 20 years ago.
Facebook is legally allowed to prohibit service to who they select, just like Six Flags prohibits all RSO’s.
So even with this U.S. Supreme Court decision remember in Virginia all nicknames and aliases plus all email addresses of RSO’s must be registered with the Virginia State Police (or face a felony) and then the VSP-IT Department sends those names and addresses to Facebook and if Facebook finds a match they close the account. If that Facebook account was owned by a VA RSO who is under VA-DOC Probation supervision that RSO will face a Probation violation (a felony) if social media or Internet access was prohibited.
So while this is a real win for arbitrary crimes against RSO’s it does not mean Facebook is going to allow RSO’s to join or not close their account.
I posit Alito’s
Misleading “Concurring in Judgement”
Which I suggest needs be studied and Countered with Truth in Reasoned Logic.
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
II
While I thus agree with the Court that the particular law at issue in this case violates the First Amendment, I am troubled by the Court’s loose rhetoric. After noting that “a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights,” the Court states that “cyberspace” and “social media in particular” are now “the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views.” Ante, at 4–5. The Court declines to explain what this means with respect to free speech law, and the Court holds no more than that the North Carolina law fails the test for content-neutral “time, place, and manner”
restrictions. But if the entirety of the internet or even just “social media” sites16 are the 21st century equivalent of public streets and parks, then States may have little ability to restrict the sites that may be visited by even the most dangerous sex offenders.
—-<<>>—
May a State preclude an adult previously convicted of molesting children from visiting a dating site for teenagers?
—<<>>—
Or a site where minors communicate with each other about personal problems?
The Court should be more attentive to the implications of its rhetoric for, contrary to the Court’s
suggestion, there are important differences between cyberspace and the physical world.
I will mention a few that are relevant to internet use by sex offenders.
—<<>>—
First, it is easier for parents to monitor the physical locations that their children visit and the individuals
with whom they speak in person than it is to monitor their internet use. Second, if a sex offender is
seen approaching children or loitering in a place fre-—————— sites discussed above would satisfy the First Amendment. Until such a law is before us, it is premature to address that question. 16As the law at issue here shows, it is not easy to provide a precise definition of a “social media” site, and the Court makes no effort to do so. Thus, the scope of its dicta is obscure.
Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017) 11
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
quented by children, this conduct may be observed by parents, teachers, or others. Third, the internet offers an unprecedented degree of anonymity and easily permits a would-be molester to assume a false identity.
The Court is correct that we should be cautious in applying our free speech precedents to the internet. Ante, at 6. Cyberspace is different from the physical world, and if it is true, as the Court believes, that “we cannot appreciate yet” the “full dimensions and vast potential” of “the Cyber Age,” ibid., we should proceed circumspectly, taking one step at a time. It is regrettable that the Court has not heeded its own admonition of caution.
—-<<>>—-
Alito’s arguments need to be addressed & countered.
As Yehovah Lives, so should we
As pointed out when this story broke in the “general” comments section for June by Paul, the best part of this opinion is this right here:
“Of importance, the troubling fact that the law
imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have
served their sentence and are no longer subject to the
supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an
issue before the Court.”
Note it says “TROUBLING FACT”!
This is a HUGE hint of the direction to take and win a challenge that gets before SCOTUS that could unravel the entire Sex Offender Registry scheme.
Couple that quote with the hints in Connecticut DPS V Doe (2003) oral arguments and opinions that the online registry may not pass a Substantive Due Process challenge, and I think we have a recipe to beat this at its core.
Important references from this Packingham decision that could be referenced in other challenges:
*****
the provision is not “ ‘“narrowly tailored to
serve a significant governmental interest.” ’ ” McCullen v. Coakley,
573 U. S. ___, ___.
*****
However, the assertion of a
valid governmental interest “cannot, in every context, be insulated
from all constitutional protections.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S.
557, 563.
*****
A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that
all persons have access to places where they can speak
and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once
more. The Court has sought to protect the right to speak
in this spatial context. A basic rule, for example, is that a
street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise
of First Amendment rights. See Ward v. Rock Against
Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 796 (1989). Even in the modern
era, these places are still essential venues for public gatherings
to celebrate some views, to protest others, or simply
to learn and inquire
*****
In order to survive intermediate scrutiny, a law must be
“narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental
interest.” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014)
(slip op., at 18) (internal quotation marks omitted). In
other words, the law must not “burden substantially more
speech than is necessary to further the government’s
legitimate interests.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 19) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
*****
But the assertion of a valid governmental interest
“cannot, in every context, be insulated from all constitutional
protections.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 563
(1969).
*****
And a nice juicy new quote from Packingham that can be cited in future challenges (and again, note they specifically us the words “COMPLETED THEIR SENTENCES”:
In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is
to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise
of First Amendment rights. It is unsettling to suggest
that only a limited set of websites can be used even by
persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted
criminals—and in some instances especially convicted
criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from
these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular
if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding
lives.
**********
It’s a great day!
Now let’s figure out how to get a proper challenge in front of SCOTUS to tear down the entire registry scheme!
Two ironies:
Irony No. 1: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts has decided against himself in a case that wouldn’t even be considered had Supreme Court Attorney for the State John Roberts had asserted that sex offender registration would be nothing more intrusive on the sex offender than a pleasant Tuesday morning filling out a Price Club application in Smith v Doe.
Irony No. 2: The original plaintiff, Gerard Packinham, was busted for posting in Facebook, which as a private company, has a right to ban people as they see fit (as registrants aren’t a protected class), so Packingham (and other registrants) may still be banned from Facebook despite the ruling. A lawsuit to protest this ban (perhaps based upon Facebook being de facto public presence based upon monopoly status) may be considered in the future (Janice?), but for now, Facebook has every right to do what they want.
@Bill Arthur. I agree there. Does sound an awful lot like an invitation. I hope it gets taken up.
Good news! My heartfelt thanks to the Packingham legal team for fighting this to the Supreme Court AND WINNING!!
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers encourages a rational and humane criminal justice policy to promote fairness, due process, and compassion talks to the lawyers in the Packingham v. North Carolina: Collateral Consequences at the High Court.
These are very good lawyers that argued this law.
https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/7/6/5762bba3fa9d7bb3/CriminalDocketEpisode051.mp3?c_id=14975563&expiration=1492772592&hwt=14414e0b518d6f0258bf625e0ffb7691
While it stops statue prohibitions, it does nothing about prohibitions via “terms of service”.
It’s the equivalent of saying no to Jim Crow laws, but continuing to allow the lunch counter owner to maintain a no coloreds policy.
Nice, but not really useful.
Yeah SCROTUS is ready to hear a real challenge to the entire scheme it is just going to take the right argument like the ones that we are preparing…This is just a sneak peak at what they will state when we hit em hard with facts and evidence and debunk their high risk BS. Chris this is huge we are definitely on the right track …..I will be back on it soon…I am sick and having to do a lot of homework so I took a break but I will be back on it so anything helpful throw it over into general comments…Thanks….
(2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:
(A) Health insurance.
(B) Insurance.
(C) Loans.
(D) Credit.
(E) Employment.
(F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships.
(G) Housing or accommodations.
(H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.
C-SPAN is playing the oral arguments for this case right now (1pm PT). Here is a audio link (with added funny video) of the oral arguments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pU6qGfSWT8
As a parolee, one of the (many) restrictions imposed upon me is being prohibited from social media like facebook and Twitter. Can anyone tell me if today’s SCOTUS ruling repeals this parole restriction?
If you Violate Face Books terms of service, they can do more than just kick you off, They can File a Civil suit and Clean out your bank Accounts. What you can do is go after the Politian’s that use it for public Speaking. They Must Equally Represent everyone.
Should come as no surprise that Justices Roberts, Alito and Thomas choose to perpetrate a myth. In most all cases, Rightists are the ones pushing this type of legislation.
….
Celebrating!!! SCOTUS = “Making America FREE Again!” 😁
that oral argument was really bizarre…how the court kept throwing out hypothetical situations one after the other and asking “would you say that would be unconstitutional or constitutional ” and finally when the attorney says to one of those inquiries that it was irrelevant he hit it on the nose…they dont accept hypotheticals from us so why should they get to use them? this was the nest argued case that i have seen for our side and is just a snapshot of what’s coming….
what i didn’t like was the fact that he didn’t debunk the other side when they were stating the same old falsehoods about recidivism…