Latest in Culture

Image credit:

Supreme Court discusses sex offender's social media ban

The justices talked about the importance of social networks in this day and age.
Share
Tweet
Share

Sponsored Links

Fotosearch

The case of a man from North Carolina brought before the Supreme Court has resulted in an interesting discussion on whether sex offenders should be banned from social media. Lester Packingham was convicted for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 2001 and was arrested again in 2010 for signing up for a Facebook account and posting on his wall. While his post was harmless -- it only said "Praise God, I didn't receive a ticket, Praise Jesus, thank God." -- a North Carolina law makes it a crime for sex offenders to use Facebook, Twitter and other social media websites.

Packingham's lawyer David Goldberg argues that the ban covers "vast swaths" of core First Amendment speech, even parts that have nothing to do with preventing child abuse. He agrees that social media ban as a condition of parole is reasonable, but a lifetime ban is a denial of free speech.

Goldberg's argument has led to the discussion of whether it's possible to live these days without Facebook or Twitter, especially since numerous politicians use them religiously. "This has become a crucially important channel of political communication," Justice Elena Kagan said. She reasoned that under North Carolina's social media ban "a person couldn't go onto those sites and find out what these members of our government are thinking or saying or doing."

The justices also questioned the North Carolina law's exemption of chat- or photo-sharing-only websites. "It just seems to exempt the stuff that's most easily used to, to do exactly the things that this statute is meant to prevent," Kagan said. That line of discussion then led to talks on what Snapchat does and if North Carolina's exemption means sex offenders can legally use it. The Supreme Court is expected to come up with a decision this summer, and according to NPR, the justices seem "ready to invalidate" the controversial law.

In this article: culture, politics, supremecourt
All products recommended by Engadget are selected by our editorial team, independent of our parent company. Some of our stories include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, we may earn an affiliate commission.
Comment
Comments
Share
Tweet
Share

Popular on Engadget

Sega's Game Gear Micro lives up to its name with a 1.15-inch screen

Sega's Game Gear Micro lives up to its name with a 1.15-inch screen

View
The kitchen gear that's worth your money

The kitchen gear that's worth your money

View
The psychology behind why people think 5G makes them sick

The psychology behind why people think 5G makes them sick

View
'Cyberpunk 2077' Night City Wire livestream delayed to June 25th

'Cyberpunk 2077' Night City Wire livestream delayed to June 25th

View
Leak offers an early look at Google's rumored Android TV dongle

Leak offers an early look at Google's rumored Android TV dongle

View

From around the web

Page 1Page 1ear iconeye iconFill 23text filevr