It may be hard to believe, but the social networking site Facebook has only been around since 2004. Since its founding, it has accumulated 1.86 billion monthly active users. The site has become a popular way to communicate with friends, share photos, reach customers, and reconnect with old acquaintances.
For registered sex offenders in North Carolina, however, Facebook is off limits. The state’s law banning sex offenders from using Facebook recently came under scrutiny in the U.S. Supreme Court in Packingham v. North Carolina. Under the law, anyone convicted of a sex crime — regardless of whether the crime involved a sex offense with a minor — is prohibited from using social networking sites that permit them to access information about other individuals and then contact the individuals through the internet.
The underlying purpose of the North Carolina law banning sex offenders from using social media sites is to prevent them from contacting potential victims online. However, those who oppose the law claim it has a chilling effect on the First Amendment.
Opponents of North Carolina Sex Offender Facebook Law Argue It Is Overly Broad
According to a Forbes report covering the oral argument in the case, the justices’ questions and comments seemed to indicate they will rule against the law. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “The point is these people are being cut off from a very large part of the marketplace of ideas. And the First Amendment includes not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information.”
The justices also asked the state’s attorney if the law prohibits not just Facebook, but other social networking sites such as Twitter and Snapchat. The state’s attorney confirmed that the law bans sex offenders from using Twitter, however, the law’s application to Snapchat wasn’t as clear. Because the law was put in place to stop sex offenders from “harvesting information anonymously,” the state’s attorney said Snapchat might be permissible.
The Fast Pace of Technology
Packingham v. North Carolina is a good example of how the speed of technology frequently outpaces the law. One of the difficulties presented by a case like Packingham is that there simply isn’t much, if any, precedent for the Court to rely on. Snapchat was founded in 2011, and new social networking sites have followed. As future social networking sites are created, courts must examine the law to determine how broad or narrow the law is designed to be.
2600 State St Dallas, Texas 75204
Main Phone: (214) 720-9552
DISCLAIMER of Liability. IN NO EVENT SHALL OUR PR COMPANY BE LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS OR LOST OPPORTUNITIES, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES IN ADVANCE AND REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION UPON WHICH ANY SUCH CLAIM IS BASED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY CLAIM ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OF THE CONTENT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND VIDEOS, OR OF THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR LEGALITY OF ANY STATEMENT MADE IN OR OMITTED FROM ANY advertisement, sponsorship, endorsement, testimonial, opinion, or other product-related or service-related statement or review appearing in the Websites or in ANY post or article distributed via the Websites.