Packingham v. North Carolina

Last updated
Packingham v. North Carolina
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 27, 2017
Decided June 19, 2017
Full case nameLester Gerard Packingham, Petitioner v. North Carolina
Docket no. 15–1194
Citations582 U.S. 98 ( more )
137 S. Ct. 1730; 198 L. Ed. 2d 273
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorState v. Packingham, 368 N.C. 380, 777 S.E.2d 738 (2015); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 368 (2016).
Holding
A statute prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media websites impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceAlito (in judgment), joined by Roberts, Thomas
Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a North Carolina statute that prohibited registered sex offenders from using social media websites is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech. [1]

Contents

In 2010, Lester Gerard Packingham, a registered sex offender, posted on Facebook under a pseudonym to comment favorably on a recent traffic court experience. Packingham was then identified by police and charged with violating North Carolina's law. Packingham moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the state's law violated the First Amendment. The trial court dismissed this motion and ultimately convicted Packingham. An appellate court initially reversed the trial court, holding that the law did violate the First Amendment, but the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, disagreed and reinstated the conviction.

In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court's judgment. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that social media—defined broadly to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post , and WebMD—is considered a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech. [2] The Court offered 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". [3]

Background

North Carolina statute

In 2008, the state of North Carolina passed a law that made it a felony for a registered sex offender "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". [4] The law defined a "commercial social networking Web site" using four criteria. Specifically, the website must:

  1. be "operated by a person who derives revenue from membership fees, advertising, or other sources related to the operation of the Web site". [5]
  2. facilitate "the social introduction between two or more persons for the purposes of friendship, meeting other persons, or information exchanges". [5]
  3. allow "users to create Web pages or personal profiles that contain information such as the name or nickname of the user, photographs placed on the personal Web page by the user, other personal information about the user, and links to other personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site of friends or associates of the user that may be accessed by other users or visitors to the Web site". [5]
  4. provide "users or visitors... mechanisms to communicate with other users, such as a message board, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messenger". [5]

The law exempted websites that "Provid[e] only one of the following discrete services: photo-sharing, electronic mail, instant messenger, or chat room or message board platform", as well as websites that have as their primary purpose "the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services between [their] members or visitors". [6]

Facts of the case

In 2002, Lester Gerard Packingham was convicted of taking "indecent liberties with a child", a felony that required him to register as a sex offender. [7] A North Carolina court sentenced him to 10-12 months in prison with 24 months of supervised release. He was given no other special instructions on his behavior outside of prison other than to "remain away from" the minor. [1] In 2010, after a state court dismissed a traffic ticket against Packingham, he submitted a post on Facebook under the name "J. R. Gerrard", stating: "Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismissed the ticket before court even started? No fine, no court cost, no nothing spent. . . . . .Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!" [8] The Durham Police Department identified Packingham as the author of the post after cross-checking the time of the post with recently dismissed traffic tickets, and a grand jury indicted him for violating the North Carolina statute. [8]

Lower court proceedings

Initially, Packingham moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that it violated the First Amendment. [9] A North Carolina Superior Court judge denied this motion, and he was convicted of violating the North Carolina social media law. [10] Packingham appealed his conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision in 2013. [10] Applying intermediate scrutiny, [11] the court of appeals determined that North Carolina's law violated the First Amendment because it was too broad, applying to all registered sex offenders regardless of whether the offender had committed a crime involving a minor or whether the offender was a continuing threat of harm to minors. [10] The court of appeals also stated that the law had been defined broadly enough to prohibit a registered sex offender from conducting a wide array of Internet activity, such as "conducting a 'Google' search, purchasing items on Amazon.com, or accessing a plethora of Web sites unrelated to online communication with minors". [10]

In 2015, the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, reversed the court of appeals, holding that the law was "constitutional in all respects". [10] [12] The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the statute was a "limitation on conduct" and did not impede any free speech. The state had a vested interest in “forestalling the illicit lurking and contact of minors” by registered sex offenders and potential future victims, and sustained Packingham's conviction. [11]

Supreme Court ruling

Packingham filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The federal government also filed a brief recommending that the Supreme Court grant certiorari, arguing that the North Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly decided the case in favor of the state. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in October 2016. Amicus briefs in support of Packingham were filed by the libertarian Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union. The North Carolina Supreme Court filed a brief supporting its prior decision, urging the importance of protecting minors in the Internet age from being stalked online. [13]

Oral argument

The oral argument took place in February 2017. Packingham’s lawyer, David T. Goldberg, argued that the law banned “vast swaths of First Amendment activity”, went too far in restricting which Internet sites could be accessed, and forbade use of the Internet in general. The law targeted speech on some of the platforms that Americans use most often, Goldberg noted, and that under the law Packingham could not even use Twitter to read the myriad messages discussing his own case. He further noted that the law imposes punishment without regard to whether the offender actually did anything wrong. [14]

North Carolina’s senior deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, argued for the state, and claimed that communication through social media sites is a “crucial channel”. [14] Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Montgomery to provide evidence as to the claim that by giving Packingham Internet privileges, he would commit another crime. Justice Stephen Breyer added that “It seems to be well-settled law that the state can’t (bar usage) unless there is a 'clear and present danger.' " [14]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina. Anthony Kennedy official SCOTUS portrait.jpg
Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina.

In June 2017 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in favor of Packingham, unanimously voting to reverse the state court. [15] [16] Justice Anthony Kennedy explained the decision: "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 as a precedent, 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'."

Concurring opinion

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion, joined by John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. While Alito agreed with Kennedy's opinion, he noted that there are reasonable scenarios for which legal bans for sex offenders can be placed, such as for sites targeted at teenagers. [2]

Impact

Packingham v. North Carolina was one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases to analyze the role of the First Amendment with respect to social media use. [17] According to Ashutosh Bhagwat, a law professor at the UC Davis School of Law, as of 2018 Packingham is one of only two cases heard by the Roberts Court that directly address new technologies up to that point, the other being Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) with respect to video games. [18] Bhagwat speculated that this might change in the future, as "recent calls to regulate 'fake news' and otherwise impose filtering obligations on search engine and social media companies will inevitably raise important and difficult First Amendment issues". [19]

Effect on First Amendment case law

In an article published in the North Dakota Law Review, Katie Miller wrote that the Packingham decision may be used to challenge laws and restrictions in other states similar to the one in North Carolina. [20] For example, in a case called United States v. Rock (2017), a defendant who pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography cited Packingham in an appeal of one of the conditions of his supervised release, which prevented him from possessing or using a computer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected that argument on the basis that the defendant's release condition was not a "post-custodial restriction" as it was in Packingham, stating that "'a court granting probation may impose reasonable conditions that deprive the offender of some freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens'". [20]

Madeleine Burnette-McGrath, in an article published in the Ohio Northern University Law Review , wrote that "Packingham adopts a new avenue for government regulation, allowing the government to interfere with individual social media entities and their ability to regulate speech that occurs on their websites" [21] [22] Specifically, Packingham delineates an intermediate scrutiny test for governmental regulation of Internet speech, under which a government agent "need only put into effect a law that is both narrowly tailored to and includes a substantial government interest". [23] Burnette-McGrath described this as a "low standard" that may inspire states to "implement new laws under the guise of substantial government interest or of being narrowly tailored" at the detriment of free speech on the Internet. [23]

See also

Related Research Articles

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court modifying its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the Miller test.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PROTECT Act of 2003</span> United States law regarding child abuse and violent crimes against children

The PROTECT Act of 2003 is a United States law with the stated intent of preventing child abuse as well as investigating and prosecuting violent crimes against children. "PROTECT" is a backronym which stands for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Missouri</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Missouri

The Supreme Court of Missouri is the highest court in the state of Missouri. It was established in 1820 and is located at 207 West High Street in Jefferson City, Missouri. Missouri voters have approved changes in the state's constitution to give the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction – the sole legal power to hear – over five types of cases on appeal. Pursuant to Article V, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, these cases involve:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States National Sex Offenders Public Registry</span> Sex offender registry search tool coordinated by the United States Department of Justice

The Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Registry is a cooperative effort between U.S. state agencies that host public sex offender registries and the U.S. federal government. The registry is coordinated by the United States Department of Justice and operates a web site search tool allowing a user to submit a single query to obtain information about sex offenders throughout the United States.

In the United States, child pornography is illegal under federal law and in all states and is punishable by up to life imprisonment and fines of up to $250,000. U.S. laws regarding child pornography are virtually always enforced and amongst the harshest in the world. The Supreme Court of the United States has found child pornography to be outside the protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Federal sentencing guidelines on child pornography differentiate between production, distribution, and purchasing/receiving, and also include variations in severity based on the age of the child involved in the materials, with significant increases in penalties when the offense involves a prepubescent child or a child under the age of 18. U.S. law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity.

<i>Doe v. Shurtleff</i>

Doe v. Shurtleff, 628 F.3d 1217, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit case assessing the constitutionality of Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5, a law that requires sex offenders to register their internet identifiers with the state in order to "assist in investigating kidnapping and sex-related crimes, and in apprehending offenders." In this case, a convicted sex offender, appearing anonymously as John Doe, appealed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Utah to vacate an order enjoining the enforcement of Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5. Even though Doe did not dispute the state's interest in enacting such a statute, he believed that the statute's enforcement ran afoul of his:

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States</span> Constitutional issue United States ;aw

The constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States has been challenged on a number of state and federal constitutional grounds. While the Supreme Court of the United States has twice upheld sex offender registration laws, in 2015 it vacated a requirement that an offender submit to lifetime ankle-bracelet monitoring, finding it was a Fourth Amendment search that was later ruled constitutionally unreasonable by the state court.

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously vacated a Massachusetts conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Missouri program that denied a grant to a religious school for playground resurfacing, while providing grants to similarly situated non-religious groups, violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<i>Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump</i> American legal case

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2019), is a case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the use of social media as a public forum. The plaintiffs, Philip N. Cohen, Eugene Gu, Holly Figueroa O'Reilly, Nicholas Pappas, Joseph M. Papp, Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, and Brandon Neely, are a group of Twitter users blocked by U.S. President Donald Trump's personal @realDonaldTrump account. They alleged that Twitter constitutes a public forum, and that a government official blocking access to that forum is a violation of the First Amendment. The lawsuit also named as defendants White House press secretary Sean Spicer and social media director Dan Scavino.

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to limitations on First Amendment-based free speech placed by private operators. The Court held that a public access station was not considered a state actor for purposes of evaluating free speech issues in a 5–4 ruling split along ideological lines. Prior to the Court's decision, analysts believed that the case had the potential to determine whether limitations on free speech on social media violate First Amendment rights. However, the Court's narrow holding avoided that issue.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the intersection of anti-discrimination law in public accommodations with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found for a website designer, ruling that the state of Colorado cannot compel the designer to create work that violates her values. The case follows from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), which had dealt with similar conflict between free speech rights and Colorado's anti-discrimination laws, but was decided on narrower grounds.

United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a federal law that criminalizes encouraging or inducing illegal immigration is unconstitutionally overbroad, violating the First Amendment right to free speech.

References

Citations
  1. 1 2 "Packingham v. North Carolina". Oyez. Retrieved March 8, 2021.
  2. 1 2 Lecher, Colin (June 19, 2017). "Supreme Court strikes down North Carolina law banning sex offenders from social media". The Verge . Retrieved June 19, 2017.
  3. ↑ Packingham v. North Carolina, slip op. at 7.
  4. ↑ Packingham, 582 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1 (quoting N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§14–202.5(a), (e) (2015)).
  5. 1 2 3 4 Packingham, 582 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1–2 (quoting N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §14–202.5(b)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  6. ↑ Packingham, 582 U.S. ___, slip op. at 2 (quoting N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §14–202.5(c)).
  7. ↑ Packingham, 582 U.S. ___, slip op. at 2.
  8. 1 2 Packingham, 582 U.S. ___, slip op. at 3.
  9. ↑ Packingham, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), slip op. at 3.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 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.
  11. 1 2 Nicholas Halliburton (2017-02-27). "Packingham v. North Carolina | LII / Legal Information Institute". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  12. ↑ Packingham, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), slip op. at 4 (quoting 386 N.C., at 381, 777 S.E. 2d, at 741).
  13. ↑ Liptak, Adam (28 February 2017). "A Constitutional Right to Facebook and Twitter? Supreme Court Weighs In". The New York Times . p. A9. Retrieved 5 December 2017.
  14. 1 2 3 "Argument analysis: Justices skeptical about social media restrictions for sex offenders". SCOTUSblog.com. 2017-02-27. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  15. ↑ The Supreme Court, 2016 Term — Leading Cases, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 233 (2017).
  16. ↑ David T. Goldberg and Emily R. Zhang, Our Fellow American, the Registered Sex Offender, 2016–2017 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 59 (2017).
  17. ↑ Burnette-McGrath 2019, p. 118.
  18. ↑ Bhagwat 2018, pp. 1328–29.
  19. ↑ Bhagwat 2018, p. 1329.
  20. 1 2 Miller 2018, p. 139.
  21. ↑ Burnette-McGrath 2019, p. 124.
  22. ↑ Burnette-McGrath 2019, p. 125.
  23. 1 2 Burnette-McGrath 2019, p. 126.
Sources
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.