Supreme Court considers law banning sex offenders from Facebook
Supreme Court will decide if law is so broad it violates Constitution's free speech protections
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The US Supreme Court is considering a law banning convicted sex offenders from social media sites such as Facebook.
The lawsuit was sparked by a North Carolina sex offender who posted on Facebook after his traffic ticket was dismissed.
"No fine. No Court costs. No nothing. Praise be to god. Wow. Thanks, Jesus," Lester Packingham Jr wrote.
Mr Packingham was forbidden by a 2008 North Carolina law from using social networking sites that children could join, because he is a registered sex offender.
He was convicted of indecent liberties with a minor when he was 21 and served 10 months in prison.
A Durham police officer investigated the post and determined Mr Packingham used an alias rather than his real name.
He was prosecuted, convicted of a felony and received a suspended prison sentence.
However, his lawyers say no evidence pointed to him using Facebook or his computer to communicate with minors, or that he posted anything inappropriate or obscene.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether the law, meant to prevent communications between sex offenders and minors, is so broad it violates the Constitution's free speech protections.
The case goes to the Supreme Court after it was upheld by North Carolina's highest court in a divided ruling.
The law addressed websites which might allow sex offenders to gather information about minors, the state court said.
But dissenting justices argued the ban extends further and could outlaw reading the New York Times and Food Network website.
"Everyday Americans understand that social media — which includes Twitter, Facebook, Instagram — are absolutely central to their daily life and how the First Amendment is exercised in America today," said Stanford law professor David Goldberg, who will represent Mr Packingham at the Supreme Court on Monday.
Though the intent of North Carolina lawmakers may have been to block sexual predators from finding and grooming prey online, Mr Goldberg said the law goes further and makes it a crime for someone on a sex-offender registry to say anything about any subject on social media.
"That goes way, way too far," Mr Goldberg said. "It's a crime to do anything, including what Mr Packingham did, which was to say 'God is good' because he was victorious in traffic court. There's never been any suggestion that he was up to anything but exercising his freedom of speech."
"We have to protect young people wherever they are, whether that's at school, or at summer camp or increasingly online," said North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, whose office is defending the law.
"This North Carolina law keeps registered sex offenders off of social networking websites that kids use without denying the offenders access to the internet. It just keeps them off of certain web sites."
Additional reporting by Associated Press
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments