3-10-17 Washington DC:
A Supreme Court case could affect the way Americans access social media.
The justices heard arguments for Peckingham v. North Carolina on Monday, over a law the state passed preventing sex offenders from using social networking sites.
While the law may seem targeted, constitutional scholars warn it could have chilling effects on many Americans’ First Amendment rights.
David Post, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and retired law professor from Temple University, filed a friend of the court brief with 14 other First Amendment scholars. They argue that the North Carolina law violates the sex offenders’ constitutional right to free speech.
Sex offenders are entitled to the same rights to free speech that any American does, Post told Business Insider.
They already served their time in prison, and are off probation, so, the state shouldn’t be able to violate their constitutional rights, according to Post.
“Not to be too extreme or hysterical about it, but I think this is the opening ledge in an attack on social networking,” Post said. “That could be very dangerous, and the court has a chance to really nip that in the bud and reaffirm that this is what the First Amendment is about — protecting these forms of communication between citizens for good and for ill. That’s just the price we pay for having the First Amendment.” ..Continued.. by Rebecca Harrington
March 10, 2017
A major Supreme Court case could affect the way you access Twitter and Facebook
October 28, 2016
Sex Offenders to Lobby High Court on Social-Media Ban
10-28-16 Washington DC:
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether North Carolina can ban registered sex offenders from using social media websites and other sites that allow minors to have accounts.
The North Carolina General Assembly enacted a law in 2008 that bans the use of "commercial social networking websites" by registered sex offenders.
Lester Packingham had been convicted six years earlier of a sexual offense and was a registered sex offender under state law.
In 2010, a Durham, N.C., police officer began investigating whether sex offenders in the state were using social media, and found a Facebook profile page belonging to Packingham, according to court records.
In one post, which the cop found, Packingham celebrated the dismissal of a traffic ticket: "Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismissed the ticket before court even started? No fine, No court costs, no nothing spent....Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!" (Emphasis in original.)
Packingham was indicted later that year for violating N.C.G.S. 14-202.5, the law banning social media use for sex offenders, and a jury found him guilty in May 2012. The trial court gave Packingham a suspended sentence and he was placed on probation.
He appealed, and in 2013 the North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated Packingham's conviction for accessing a social networking website as a registered sex offender, finding that the law at issue is unconstitutional.
The state appeals court found that the statute "is not narrowly tailored, is vague, and fails to target the 'evil' it is intended to rectify," and that it "arbitrarily burdens all registered sex offenders by preventing a wide range of communication and expressive activity unrelated to achieving its purported goal."
A divided North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the appeals court a year ago, ruling 4-2 that N.C.G.S. 14-202.5 "is constitutional in all respects."
"[The law] is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest, and leaves available ample alternative channels of communication. Defendant has failed to meet the high bar necessary to mount a successful facial challenge," Justice Robert Edmunds Jr. wrote for the state's high court.
Packingham appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in a petition for writ of certiorari filed in March of this year.
"The statute singles out a subclass of persons, who are subject to criminal punishment based on expressive, associational, and communicative activities at the heart of the First Amendment, without any requirement that their activity caused any harm or was intended to," Packingham's petition states.
According to the petition, the North Carolina law bans registered sex offenders from accessing "a wide array of websites—including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com—that enable communication, expression, and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is 'know[n]' to allow minors to have accounts."
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether N.C.G.S. 14-202.5 is constitutional, both on its face and as applied to Packingham.
Per its custom, the nation's highest court did not comment on its decision to hear the case. ..Source.. by KEVIN LESSMILLER
September 30, 2016
U.S. Supreme Court to take up Colorado case over refunding court fees in criminal cases
9-29-16 Washington DC:
Shannon Nelson and Louis Alonzo Madden asked to be reimbursed after their convictions were reversed
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a Colorado case in which a man and a woman were exonerated of different sexual crimes but then denied a refund of thousands of dollars in court fees and costs.
The high court will determine whether those wrongfully convicted of crimes are entitled to reimbursement of certain court costs, said Colorado attorney Robert Fishman, who wrote an amicus brief in support of the appeal.
“This case could have a very practical consequence to a lot of people,” Fishman said. Appellant Shannon Nelson was convicted in 2006 of five sexual assault charges she allegedly committed against children. Besides a prison term, she was assessed a total of $8,193 for numerous court fines and fees including $7,845 for restitution to the victims. Her convictions were reversed on appeal.
Co-appellant Louis Alonzo Madden was convicted in 2005 of attempting to patronize a prostituted child and attempted sexual assault. His court fees and costs totaled $4,413, including $128 for genetic testing for sex offenders and a $2,000 sex offender surcharge. His attempted charge of patronizing a prostitute was reversed on appeal, according to the appeal.
But when the appellants sought reimbursement for these payments on the basis of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, their motions were denied.
A Colorado appeals court said state law required a full refund. But the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the ruling.
“We hold that due process does not require a refund of costs, fees, and restitution when a defendant’s conviction is reversed and she is subsequently acquitted,” the Colorado Supreme Court concluded.
Colorado Justice William W. Hood III dissented, arguing that “because Nelson was never validly convicted, we presume she is innocent. … Just as the state was required to release Nelson from incarceration, it should also be required to release Nelson’s money paid as costs, fees and restitution.”
Colorado allows reimbursement of court fees only if the defendant files a new civil lawsuit and proves his or her innocence, Fishman said.
“It’s an extraordinarily high burden,” he said.
In many cases the costs of hiring an attorney and proving their innocence would be more than the court fees, making such a recourse impractical, Fishman said. ..Source.. by Kirk Mitchell
November 11, 2015
North Carolina’s law banning registered sex offenders from social media is “bad law, bad policy,” according to ACLU
11-11-15 North Carolina:
On Friday, North Carolina’s state Supreme Court ruled that banning registered sex offenders from social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter is constitutional, reversing an earlier decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
In 2008, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a package of laws supported by Attorney General Roy Cooper barring registered sex offenders from using social media networks. The laws also included sentencing for “pornographers and child predators who use Internet websites to target victims,” according to a statement from Cooper's office. In 2012, Lester Gerard Packingham, a registered sex offender from Durham, successfully challenged the law; the state Supreme Court reversed that ruling last week.
“Our laws bar convicted sex offenders from living near schools and working with young people in real life, and it’s just as important to protect kids in the online world,” Cooper said. “I pushed for this law to put another barrier between sex offenders and potential victims, and I’m pleased that the court has agreed with our arguments to keep this law in place.”
But civil liberties advocates say this kind of law infringes on peoples’ constitutional right to free speech and creates impediments to convicted offenders who are trying to reintegrate into society after serving prison time.
“Some of these social media platforms have become the new Town Square, where people interact with family members, where people have political discussions and organize protests and where they connect with friends and loved ones who live far away,” says Nathan Wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberty Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology project, who is based in New York.
“In today’s digital age, some social media platforms are some of the most consistent forms of free speech and association people are having, and by blocking people from using them, the Legislature and the courts are chilling their ability to engage in First Amendment protected activity.”
Wessler says this kind of legislation, though well-meaning, is over-broad; it misidentifies a problem it is directed at solving by banning everyone on the state’s sex offender registry, regardless of whether they are likely to use social media to commit a crime.
“What we know about sex crimes directed at children is, they are often perpetrated by family members and acquaintances,” says Wessler. “It comes up with a solution that doesn’t narrowly target the danger, and by blocking these people from using these platforms after they serve their time, it makes it more difficult for them to find employment and maintain strong family connections, important factors in making sure they can reintegrate and participate in all kinds of modern life.”
Wessler says other states have seen this kind of legislation, or variations on it where people report their social media user names to the government for monitoring. In states with an all-out social media ban like North Carolina’s— in Georgia, Indiana, Nebraska, Utah, Louisiana and California, for example—Wessler says that’s parts of those laws have been struck down. ..Source.. by Jane Porter
November 6, 2015
North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook
UPDATED 11-6-15 North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook11-5-15 North Carolina:
UPDATED 11-7-15 NC Supreme Court bars registered sex offenders from some social media sites
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – The North Carolina Supreme Court has upheld a state law prohibiting registered sex offenders from using social networking sites such as Facebook that allow minors to join.
The court issued an opinion Friday that reversed a lower court ruling that found the law unconstitutional.
The 2008 law was challenged by registered sex offender Lester Gerard Packingham, who was convicted of an additional offense after Durham police found his Facebook page.
His attorney had argued the law was too broad and could prohibit routine Internet activity, such as a Google search.
Packingham was convicted in 2002 of taking indecent liberties with a child. For his 2012 conviction related to the Facebook page, he received a suspended sentence and probation.
A lawyer for Packingham didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment. ..Source.. by News13.com
September 8, 2014
North Carolina Supreme Court hears case debating sex offenders, social networking
UPDATED 11-6-15 North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook9-8-2014 North Carolina:
The North Carolina Supreme Court today heard oral arguments from a pair of lawyers debating whether or not a Durham sex offender committed a crime when he logged onto Facebook under a pseudonym and praised Jesus.
The man, Lester Packingham Jr., who had sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old when he was 21, had been prohibited from accessing any social networking site under a North Carolina law passed in 2008. But in 2010, Packingham, then 29, posted a religious message on his Facebook page after beating a traffic ticket: "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!"
The INDY covered the case last May, when it was up before the Court of Appeals.
Packingham's true identity was discovered by the Durham Police Department, and he was convicted for use of a commercial social networking site. But Packingham appealed and last year won his case after a unanimous panel of judges determined that the social networking ban infringed on the First Amendment rights of sex offenders.
"[W]e conclude that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.5 is not narrowly tailored, is vague, and fails to target the “evil” it is intended to rectify," wrote the judges in their opinion. "Instead, it arbitrarily burdens all registered sex offenders by preventing a wide range of communication and expressive activity unrelated to achieving its purported goal."
The State appealed to the Supreme Court, paving the way for today's hearing. A decision should be handed down sometime in the next several months. ..Source.. by John H. Tucker
September 6, 2013
Appeals Court ruling could allow sex offenders access to social media
UPDATED 11-6-15 North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook9-6-2013 North Carolina:
A North Carolina Court of Appeals' decision [Packingham] to no longer ban registered sex offenders from using social media websites like Facebook could free a Cherokee man from prison.
On Friday, however, the Supreme Court agreed to keep the law in place until it can be reviewed, which means registered sex offender Brandon Taylor, 28, will remain behind bars. It also will remain illegal for Swain County's 36 other registered sex offenders to have access to social media.
A possible change in the law concerns assistant district attorney Sybil Mann, who prosecutes cases in Swain County.
Last month, Taylor pled guilty in Swain County Superior Court to illegally creating two Facebook accounts under an alias so he could talk to underage girls. A judge sentenced Taylor to six to eight months in state prison.
He was convicted in 2007 for committing an indecent liberty with a minor and served 27 months in prison, according to the state justice department website
According to Mann, who also prosecutes cases in Graham County, a school resource officer there has already complained to her about a sex offender targeting minors online.
Mann believes the North Carolina Attorney General's Office will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court. The law ruled unconstitutional stated it was unlawful for a registered sex offender to access a commercial social networking website accessed by minors.
The court of appeals ruled the law unconstitutional because it violates First Amendment freedom of speech rights and is too vague.
Judge Rick Elmore wrote, "it arbitrarily burdens all registered sex offenders by preventing a wide range of communication and expressive activity unrelated to achieving its purported goal, it violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and it is unconstitutional on its face and as applied."
State attorney general Roy Cooper - whose office represented the state in the case - said he plans to appeal, according to Mann.
Since the ruling was unanimous, supreme court justices aren’t obligated to hear such an appeal, according to the Associated Press.
However, the state can file a petition to send it to the supreme court since it is a question of constitutionality, Mann noted.
“The law is broad because technology moves fast and we don’t want predators and child pornographers to use legal loopholes,” Cooper told the Associated Press.
The Protect Children From Sexual Predators Act was signed into law in 2008. Mann agrees, saying “laws have to be broad sometimes to try to encompass variations."
"Unfortunately, children are by their nature very trusting," she said. "Of course every parent should watch what their children do online, but our state thought this law was very important for our children.”
Mann estimates she has prosecuted about 10 people for violating the law.
In the court of appeals ruling, Elmore said the law defines social networking sites too broadly, arguing it could be used to ban sex offenders from Google or Amazon.
“It is fundamentally impossible to expect an offender, or any other person, to know whether he is banned from a particular website prior to accessing it,” wrote Elmore.
The three-judge panel made the decision after reviewing similar federal cases. Elmore said “the constitutional journey of these types of laws is early yet.” ..Source.. by Chad Simons, Reporter
August 30, 2013
North Carolina Supreme Court blocks sex offenders from social media
UPDATED 11-6-15 North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook8-30-2013 North Carolina:
RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) -- The North Carolina Supreme Court has granted a stay requested by Attorney General Roy Cooper that will keep registered sex offenders from using social media websites.
Cooper plans to appeal a ruling by The North Carolina Court of Appeals on August 20 which struck down North Carolina's ban on registered sex offenders using sites like Facebook and Twitter.
The court said the ban in N.C. General Statute 14-202.5 "is not narrowly tailored, is vague, and fails to target the "evil" it is intended to rectify."
"The statute violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, and it is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's judgment," wrote the court.
"We plan to ask the Supreme Court to review the case and uphold this tool that law enforcement and prosecutors can use to protect children," Cooper said in a news release Friday ("Social networking ban for sex offenders remains in effect").
Cooper said the law keeps child predators and pornographers from using the internet to find their victims.
The appeals court ruling centered around a Durham case in which Lester Gerard Packingham appealed his felony conviction for accessing a commercial networking site last year. According to the trial records, the Durham Police Department was looking at evidence that registered sex offenders were using the websites MySpace and Facebook, and an officer recognized Packingham's photo on Facebook.
The North Carolina law says registered sex offenders may not use commercial social media sites if they know the site "permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages."
But in its ruling, the appeals court said the law "arbitrarily burdens all registered sex offenders by preventing a wide range of communication and expressive activity unrelated to achieving its purported goal [of preventing contact with children.]"
If Cooper's attempt at an appeal fails, he has said he will go back to the legislature to see if they can craft a new sex offender social media law that will withstand a legal challenge. ..Source.. by ABCLocal.com
August 20, 2013
North Carolina appeals court strikes social media ban for sex offenders
UPDATED 11-6-15 North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook8-20-2013 North Carolina:
RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) -- The North Carolina Court of Appeals on Tuesday struck down North Carolina's ban on registered sex offenders using social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.
The court said the ban in N.C. General Statute 14-202.5 "is not narrowly tailored, is vague, and fails to target the "evil" it is intended to rectify."
"The statute violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, and it is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's judgment," wrote the court.
The ruling centered around a Durham case in which Lester Gerard Packingham appealed his felony conviction for accessing a commercial networking site last year. According to the trial records, the Durham Police Department was looking at evidence that registered sex offenders were using the websites MySpace and Facebook, and an officer recognized Packingham's photo on Facebook.
The North Carolina law says registered sex offenders may not use commercial social media sites if they know the site "permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages."
But in its ruling, the appeals court said the law "arbitrarily burdens all registered sex offenders by preventing a wide range of communication and expressive activity unrelated to achieving its purported goal [of preventing contact with children.]" ..Source.. by WTVD.com
April 8, 2011
Judge skips issue of ban on offenders
UPDATED 11-6-15 North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook4-8-2011 North Carolina:
DURHAM Superior Court Judge Michael Morgan declined Thursday to rule on the constitutionality of a law banning registered sex offenders from Facebook or Myspace, but said the law had been fairly applied by Durham police.
Christian Martin Johnson and Lester Packingham were charged with maintaining social-networking accounts while listed on the N.C. Sex Offender Registry. They say a social-networking ban enacted in 2008 violates their rights to free speech and association, and were seeking to have charges against them dismissed.
Morgan said deciding the constitutionality of the law is beyond his jurisdiction.
Packingham's attorney Lynn Norton-Ramirez said Morgan should have forced the prosecution to support its claim that keeping sex offenders off social-networking websites serves the compelling state interest of protecting children. She argued that the Internet doesn't provide direct access to children and therefore shouldn't be regulated like schools or other places that children gather.
"I didn't really hear that as being dealt with," said Norton-Ramirez.
Morgan said he didn't need to rule on the broad constitutional issues because the defendants were charged under only one portion of the law.
Norton-Ramirez could appeal Morgan's ruling either before the cases go to trial May 9 or in the event the defendants are convicted.
Norton-Ramirez said Morgan's decision allows her and Johnson's lawyer, Glenn Gerding, to take the cases to a higher court and perhaps to get the law overturned statewide.
"(If the defendants) had their case dismissed, then nobody else in the state would have benefited." ..Source.. by Jesse James DeConto
April 7, 2011
Ruling due on sex offenders' access to Facebook social site
UPDATED 11-6-15 North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook4-7-2011 North Carolina:
DURHAM -- Superior Court Judge Michael Morgan could rule today on whether keeping registered sex offenders off Facebook is necessary to protect children from harm.
Last summer, Durham police charged eight sex offenders for using Facebook or Myspace. Most of them have pleaded guilty, but two are fighting the charge, saying a new law that took effect two years ago is unconstitutional.
Assistant District Attorney Mark McCullough acknowledged the social-networking ban infringes on sex offenders' rights to free speech and association but argued that the protection of children gives North Carolina a compelling reason for a ban.
Minors are all over Facebook," McCullough said. "If the child is there and the sex offender is there, there's every opportunity to lure them."
Attorney Lynne Norton-Ramirez, representing Lester Packingham, argued that the law is too restrictive because social networking sites require some effort to search out particular people, and even if a sex offender made online contact with a child, that wouldn't put the child in immediate physical danger.
"They're not physically in a particular place, luring children off the playground," Norton-Ramirez said. "The law could say, 'You may not make contact with minors on the Internet,' but the law doesn't say that."
Protective boundary?
But Morgan indicated that the Facebook ban provides the same sort of protective boundary that a schoolyard ban does: It helps keep a sex offender from children.
"In some ways, I think [a schoolyard's] a safer place for them," McCullough said. "Facebook, frankly, is a more dangerous situation where communication is more isolated and there isn't anyone there to draw attention to what is going on."
Norton-Ramirez countered that such a broad ban, with no imminent risk of physical danger, takes away too many opportunities from her client.
"In our society, nobody meets in real life anymore. They meet online," she said. "My kids will sit there and text their friends in the other room. God forbid they walk in the other room and talk to them."
McCullough said certain parts of Google.com are off-limits under the law, and Norton-Ramirez said the law doesn't give enough guidance for law enforcement or sex offenders to know what's permissible and what's not.
"We can't be working with that. I mean, that makes no sense at all," she said. "We don't even know what sites are OK, so how is somebody who is not an attorney or who is not a police officer supposed to know?" ..Source.. by JESSE JAMES DECONTO - Staff Writer
