{"id":201713,"date":"2017-06-27T06:53:17","date_gmt":"2017-06-27T10:53:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/scotus-gets-social-does-the-first-amendment-protect-the-right-to-lexology-registration\/"},"modified":"2017-06-27T06:53:17","modified_gmt":"2017-06-27T10:53:17","slug":"scotus-gets-social-does-the-first-amendment-protect-the-right-to-lexology-registration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/first-amendment-2\/scotus-gets-social-does-the-first-amendment-protect-the-right-to-lexology-registration\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Gets Social: Does the First Amendment Protect the Right to &#8230; &#8211; Lexology (registration)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    The U.S. Supreme Court has issued one of its first decisions    addressing the relationship between the First Amendment and the    Internet. In     Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. ___ (June 19,    2017), the Court holds that a North Carolina sex offender    statute violates the First Amendments free speech guarantee.  <\/p>\n<p>    The North Carolina statute at issue in Packingham made    it a felony for registered sex offenders to access social    networking websites that permit access to minor children.    Lester Gerard Packingham, the petitioner and a registered sex    offender, violated that law in 2010 by posting on Facebook    about a traffic ticket. After his indictment by a grand jury,    the instant First Amendment issue progressed through the North    Carolina courts and the Supreme Court granted    certiorari.  <\/p>\n<p>    Justice Kennedys majority (incld. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer,    Sotomayor, and Kagan) declares that [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. Packingham,    Slip Op. at 4. The Court not only reiterated the basic tenet    that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the    exercise of First Amendment rights, but took it further in    stating:  <\/p>\n<p>    While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying    the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange    of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspacethe vast    democratic forums of the Internet in general, and social media    in particular.  <\/p>\n<p>    Id. at 4-5 (internal quotations and citations    omitted). The majority opinion, however, cautions that [t]he    forces and directions of the Internet are so new, so protean,    and so far reaching that courts must be conscious that what    they say today might be obsolete tomorrow. Id. at 6.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Court ultimately holds that the North Carolina statute    suppress[es] lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful    speech and therefore must be held invalid. Id. at    10 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Although a    State may 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, the North Carolina statute    was unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it    burdens because to foreclose access to social media    altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the    legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. Id. at    7-8. The Court overturned the judgment of the North Carolina    Supreme Court and remanded the case for further proceedings    consistent with the Courts opinion.  <\/p>\n<p>    Justice Alitos concurrence, joined by Chief Justice Roberts    and Justice Thomas, agrees that the North Carolina statute    violates the First Amendment but takes issues with dicta of    the majority opinion and notes that the three Justices are    troubled by the implications of unnecessary rhetoric.    Id., Concurrence at 2.  <\/p>\n<p>    The concurrence notes that if the entirety of the internet or    even just social media sites are the 21st century equivalent    of public streets and parks, then States may have little    ability to restrict the sites that may be visited by even the    most dangerous sex offenders. Id. at 10. Expressing    the view that [t]he Court should be more attentive to the    implications of its rhetoric because there are important    differences between cyberspace and the physical world, the    concurring Justices recommend that we should proceed    circumspectly, taking one step at a time. Id. at    10-11.  <\/p>\n<p>    The ultimate impact and reach of these opinions, including    their application of the First Amendment to social media, will    be explored by lower courts, state and federal legislators, and    (perhaps) again the Supreme Court (Justice Gorsuch did not    participate in this decision).  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Read the original:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lexology.com\/library\/detail.aspx?g=07943015-cb5d-4efa-b040-d661e6fb3696\" title=\"SCOTUS Gets Social: Does the First Amendment Protect the Right to ... - Lexology (registration)\">SCOTUS Gets Social: Does the First Amendment Protect the Right to ... - Lexology (registration)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> The U.S.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/first-amendment-2\/scotus-gets-social-does-the-first-amendment-protect-the-right-to-lexology-registration\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94877],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-first-amendment-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201713"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201713"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201713\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}