This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AHeneen (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 21 June 2017 (→top: re-write lead sentence to better describe the decision). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:52, 21 June 2017 by AHeneen (talk | contribs) (→top: re-write lead sentence to better describe the decision)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 2017 United States Supreme Court case| Packingham v. North Carolina | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued February 27, 2017 Decided June 19, 2017 | |
| Full case name | Lester Gerard Packingham, Petitioner v. North Carolina |
| Docket no. | 15–1194 |
| Citations | 582 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Holding | |
| The North Carolina statute impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas |
| Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| North Carolina Law Article 27A chapter 14 law 202.5 and 208.5, Sexually violent predator laws, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, Sex offender registries in the United States | |
Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that a North Carolina statute that prohibited sex offenders from accessing social media websites—defined broadly enough to include Amazon.com, the Washington Post, and WebMD—violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, noting that North Carolina could protect children through less restrictive means, such as prohibiting "conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor".
Lester Gerard Packingham was caught using one of these sites but argued that under his First Amendment right he should be able to use online websites for daily use in the dot-com era. A North Carolina Superior Court ruled that Packingham had violated the North Carolina statute 14.208.5 by posting and uploading to Facebook and related sites. He then appealed this ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which reversed the ruling stating that this infringed on his First Amendment rights. The North Carolina Supreme Court noticed this case and decided to put it on their docket, NCSC affirmed the conviction of the trial court that Packingham was guilty on the grounds that as a registered sex offender you forfeit certain rights. Packingham appealed to the United States Supreme Court under the violation that the court should use strict scrutiny when looking at First Amendment rights violations under this law. In a unanimous decision issued in June 2017, the court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and that social media is considered a protected space under the First Amendment for lawful speech.
Background
Lester Gerard Packingham was convicted of taking “indecent liberties” with a minor in 2002. He was 21 years old and a college junior in Durham North Carolina where the age of consent is 16 years old. North Carolina appellant court sentenced him to the standard 12 months in prison with a 24 month supervised release. He was given no other special instructions on his behavior outside of prison other than “remain away from the minor”. In 2010 Packingham was arrested when authorities discovered a post on his Facebook profile “thanking God for having his parking ticket dismissed” Packingham was arrested for violating North Carolina’s law which bars registered sex offenders from accessing social media and alike sites.
Packingham argued that the social media law violated his First Amendment rights and demanded that it be struck down as unconstitutional. In North Carolina Trial Court he was convicted and the law was upheld due to the states interest in keeping sexual predators off of social media sites in order to protect minors. Packingham appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals which reversed the decision made by the trial court and found that the website provision was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. North Carolina appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court who reversed the decision made by the Appeals court finding that it was a “limitation on conduct” and did not impede any free speech. The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the state had a vested interest in “forestalling the illicit lurking and contact of minors” by registered sex offenders and potential future victims. North Carolina State law 14-202.5 ban use of commercial social networking Web sites by sex offenders. “…In accordance with the law registered sex offenders under Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site.” Packingham argues that the court should use strict scrutiny due to the fact that this law neither regulates conduct with an effect on free speech as in U.S v. O’Brian 391 U.S. 367 (1968), nor a law that regulates time, place or manner of speech as in Ward v. Rock Again Racism 491 U.S. 781 (1989). But North Carolina argues that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.5 is a content neutral law on time, place and manner and should be upheld.
Question of the case
The North Carolina Supreme Court sustained petitioner's conviction under a criminal law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.5, 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" to allow minors to have accounts. The law-which applies to thousands of people who, like petitioner, have completed all criminal justice supervision-does not require the State to prove that the accused had contact with (or gathered information about) a minor, or intended to do so, or accessed a website for any illicit or improper purpose. The question presented is: Whether, under this Court's First Amendment precedents, such a law 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!"
The question being presented is if the First Amendment ideas that the court currently possesses see it fit to ban the North Carolina statue on the grounds that it restricts free speech to registered sex offenders.
Lower court rulings
The Trial Court of North Carolina ruled that the First Amendment rights of Lester Packingham were not being infringed in this case due to the states “interest in the protection of minors”. The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled against the trial court saying that this law was impeding the First Amendment rights and that it should be struck down. The law is too over arching, it does not allow for use of even the most remedial of websites including ESPN and The Guardian. The North Carolina Supreme Court then overturned that ruling stating that the state of North Carolina had an interest in safety and protection of minors in the state. The Supreme Court of the United States then agreed to hear the case due to the fact that this is a major impediment of free speech, they are currently working to come to a conclusion as to if registered sex offenders should have their rights restricted.
Arguments in the Supreme Court
Arguments for the case were given on February 27, 2017. Packingham’s lawyer David Goldberg, argued that the law bans “vast swaths of First Amendment activity”, it goes too far in restricting what internet sites can be used and basically does not allow for use of the internet in general. “The law targets speech on some of the platforms that Americans use most often—indeed, Goldberg noted, under the law Packingham could not even use Twitter to read the myriad messages discussing his own case—and imposes punishment without regard to whether the sex offender has actually done anything wrong.” North Carolina’s senior deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, argued for the respondent. Montgomery pushed back saying expressing concern with how communication through these sites is a “crucial channel”. Justice Sotomayor seemed to be more skeptical about the states claim that this law is necessary to prevent sexual abuse of minors. She asked Montgomery to provide evidence as to the claim that by giving Packingham Internet privileges he would commit another crime. Justice Breyer also joined the fray in stating that we are supposed to block people from the Internet because they have the possibility of saying something dangerous. “It seems to be well-settled law, he concluded, that the state can’t do so unless there is a “clear and present danger.”
Opinion of the Court
Packingham appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The federal government also filed a brief recommending that the Supreme Court grant the writ of certiorari, arguing that the North Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly decided the case in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 28, 2016. The Court agreed to hear arguments for the case on December 22, 2016 and set the date for arguments as February 27, 2017. Amicus briefs in support of Packingham were filed by libertarian Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union. David T. Goldberg, former law clerk to Justice Ginsburg in the D.C. Circuit court, is actively involved in drafting the writ of the petitioner in fighting for the First Amendment rights of Packingham as well as other sex offenders. The North Carolina Supreme Court filed a brief supporting the respondents, urging the importance of protecting minors in the Internet age from being stalked online. The oral argument took place on February 27, 2017.
The Court issued its ruling on June 19, 2017, unanimously determining the law to be unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy, in an opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, described the decision based on the First Amendment: "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." He continued that "By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge." Citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Kennedy also wrote: "It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government 'may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech'."
Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, and was joined by Roberts and Thomas. While Alito agreed with Kennedy's opinion, he noted that there are reasonable scenarios where legal bans for sex offenders can be placed, such as for sites targeted for teenagers.
See also
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747
- Ward v. Rock Again Racism, 491 U.S. 781
- United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367
References
- Packingham v. North Carolina, slip op. at 7.
- ^ "Packingham v. North Carolina". SCOTUSblog.com. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
- ^ Lecher, Colin (June 19, 2017). "Supreme Court strikes down North Carolina law banning sex offenders from social media". The Verge. Retrieved June 19, 2017.
- ^ "Body Politic : Packingham v. North Carolina". Oyez.org. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
- "G.S. 14-202.5". Ncleg.net. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
- Nicholas Halliburton (2017-02-27). "Packingham v. North Carolina | LII / Legal Information Institute". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
- Grossman, Perry (2017-03-01). "Packingham v. North Carolina is a First Amendment test case in the age of Trump". Slate.com. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
- ^ "Argument analysis: Justices skeptical about social media restrictions for sex offenders". SCOTUSblog.com. 2017-02-27. Retrieved 2017-05-03.