No, North Carolina's law is unconstitutional. The court said that websites like Facebook are the modern-day 'town square,' where people get news, find jobs, and discuss important topics. Banning people from these sites cuts them off from society and takes away their basic right to speak and listen. While protecting kids is extremely important, the state's law went way too far. It was like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, banning tons of innocent activity to prevent a potential crime. The state should have made a more specific rule, like banning sex offenders from contacting kids online, instead of a total ban on using social media.

No, the law is unconstitutional, but the main opinion's reasoning is a bit careless. This judge agreed the law had to be struck down because it was written so broadly it could ban sex offenders from using sites like Amazon, WebMD, or news websites just because they have comment sections. But he worried that the majority's comparison of the entire internet to a 'public park' was dangerous. He warned that this could stop states from passing more reasonable laws in the future, like banning high-risk offenders from teen dating websites, because the internet is different and can be more dangerous than a real-life park.

Yes, the North Carolina law is not allowed under the First Amendment because it restricts too much legal speech. The law stops sex offenders from using websites that many people use to find out about current events, look for jobs, express their thoughts and opinions, and learn about all sorts of things. The government did not prove that such a broad law is necessary to keep sex offenders away from kids.

Agrees that the North Carolina law is unconstitutional because it restricts too much speech, but is worried about how the majority opinion compares the entire internet to public places like streets and parks. Justice Alito says the Court should be careful about making broad statements like this and think about how the internet is different from the physical world.

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 cyberspace—the `vast democratic forums of the Internet'in general and social media in particular. "(citation omitted

—a First Amendment challenge to a North Carolina statute that prohibited all sex offenders from accessing social media websites.

—the Supreme Court ruled that a North Carolina statute making 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 Web pages" violated the First Amendment.

—noting that social media websites are for many "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

These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.

The 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.

"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."

In short, social media users employ these websites to engage in a wide array of protected First Amendment activity on topics "as diverse as human thought."

The Court held that "to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights."

The Supreme Court explicitly linked its holding to "the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system."

Yes, the North Carolina statute violates the First Amendment. The law is not narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest in protecting children, as it broadly prohibits access to essential forums for protected speech. The court reasoned that cyberspace, and social media sites in particular, are the modern equivalent of the public square, representing the most important places for the exchange of views. By foreclosing access to these platforms, the law prevents individuals from engaging in a wide array of lawful, protected First Amendment activities, such as accessing news, seeking employment, and participating in political and social discourse. Even under intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests. The state could have pursued its goals through more specific laws, such as prohibiting direct contact with minors, rather than imposing a sweeping ban on an entire medium of communication.

Yes, the judgment that the law is unconstitutional is correct. The North Carolina statute violates the Free Speech Clause due to its extraordinary breadth, but the majority's reasoning is flawed. The law's definition of a 'commercial social networking Web site' is so broad that it would criminalize accessing websites like Amazon.com, Washingtonpost.com, and WebMD.com, which have little potential to facilitate child abuse. However, the majority's undisciplined dicta equating the entire internet with public streets and parks is dangerous. This rhetoric could be misinterpreted to mean that states are powerless to restrict even the most dangerous sex offenders from accessing high-risk websites, such as teenage dating sites. The court should proceed with more caution when applying traditional First Amendment doctrines to the unique environment of cyberspace, which presents different risks than the physical world.

Yes, the North Carolina statute impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and burdens more speech than necessary. The statute prevents 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. The State has not met its burden to show that this sweeping law is necessary or legitimate to serve its purpose of keeping convicted sex offenders away from vulnerable victims.

Concurs in the judgment that the North Carolina law violates the First Amendment because it burdens more speech than necessary, but writes separately to express concerns about the majority's broad language equating the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks. Justice Alito cautions that the Court should be more attentive to the implications of its rhetoric and proceed cautiously in light of the differences between cyberspace and the physical world.

Packingham v. North Carolina

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot