NC law banning registered sex offenders from social media faces challenge at Supreme Court

[TexasTowelie]

Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2017, 04:06 AM - Edit history (1)

WASHINGTON -- Police arrested Durham, N.C. resident and convicted sex offender Lester G. Packingham, Jr. after he posted a message praising God on Facebook.

Now, the Supreme Court will weigh Packingham’s challenge to the North Carolina law that bans registered sex offenders from visiting online social networking sites that could be frequented by minors.

It’s a tricky case, requiring a balance between free speech and public safety, the short-handed court on Monday must sort through Packingham’s claim that the Internet access-restricting law adopted by North Carolina in 2008 violates the First Amendment. The court’s ultimate answer will guide other states, as well.

“Some of the logical paths to the court’s opinion could have considerable implications,” noted UCLA School of Law Professor Eugene Volokh.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article134741084.html

[littlemissmartypants]

1. Great post. Thanks Texas Towelie. ♡

[TexasTowelie]

4. You're welcome.

I think that this case does have far-reaching implications as indicated in the other responses. In our zeal to protect minors from abuse I also can see where we are abusing the rights of the RSOs. Once they have served their sentence continuing that punishment indefinitely seems excessive. Set the conditions to monitor social media accounts, but don't completely deny access.

[Simon_Moon]

2. 1st amendment

While the very concept of a sexual predator touring Instagram, fb and such must be detestable, these are personal decisions. The first amendment of the bill of rights must remain inalienable. If we can compromise here than the trump administration will insist that we compromise on freedom of the press, they will demand religious tests; in other words if we ask for the first amendment to be compromised, then they will demand that the bill of rights itself will be subject to the administration's interpretation. That will be the fall of the free world.

I don't want sex offenders trolling my nieces any more than you do your daughters, but if the cost, constitutionally speaking, is the first (and might i add most important) amendment, then I suggest we observe our children better and and use the laws in place to remain vigilant.

[MADem]

3. Don't you have to give your age to get on fb and some of these other places?

You'd think those geniuses would come up with an app that they could require a child predator to install, that makes profiles of youngsters, based on the year of birth they provide--even those that are locked up tight--completely invisible.

They'd still see kids who were lying about their age, but it would cut down on the skulking around.

As a condition of parole they could be required to allow forensic examination of their computer/devices at a moment's notice.

[littlewolf]

5. the parole officer CAN search their computers at any time

it is a requirement of parole, same as an ankle bracelet.

it is when they have served their sentence that it gets tricky
they are still registered sex offenders

[MADem]

6. I've seen sex offender sentences that are lifelong, though....

They're a condition of release from prison--in effect, it's lifetime parole. That sex offender registry places limits on where people can live, for example. The child molester won't be living in that efficiency apartment across from the elementary school...


I know this has been challenged in some states but it hasn't been overturned at the federal level--if it were, I suspect there'd be more life sentences handed out for those types of crimes.