LESTER GERARD PACKINGHAM v. NORTH CAROLINA
Supreme Court of the United States, Kennedy, June 19, 2017,
Sex Offender- 1st Amendment- Internet- The government cannot prohibit a sex offender’s use of social media without narrowly limiting that prohibition

(Concur- Alito with Roberts and Thomas- the entire internet is not a public forum)

Facts: In 2008, North Carolina enacted a statute making it a felony for a registered sex offender to gain access to a number of websites, “including commonplace social media websites like Facebook and Twitter.”
In 2002, Packingham was 21 and had sex with a 13-year-old. He was charged and pled guilty of taking indecent liberties with a child. As a result, he was required to register as a sex offender. In 2010, Packingham had a traffic ticket dismissed in court. As a response, he logged on to Facebook and posted “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!”
Packingham’s statement came to the attention of the Durham PD and he was eventually convicted of violating the statute.
Packingham appealed, arguing that he was not accused of contacting children and therefore he had the right to free speech on the internet as well as in person.

Held: The Supreme Court agreed. Because social media is such a significant part of modern life, a State would have to have a very good reason for keeping a person from participating in it. Here, NC did not. While a law keeping sex-offenders from contacting children would have been valid, a law keeping them off the internet entirely was not.

First Amendment- Right to speech- The right to free speech includes the right to be in a public forum where speech occurs. Physically this includes streets and parks, but it also includes “the vast democratic forums of the Internet.” This includes “social media in particular.”

First Amendment- A law that substantially impacts free speech must be both “content neutral” and “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.”

First Amendment- Limitations- A State could enact “specific, narrowly tailored laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor.”