地 址：联系地址联系地址联系地址
电 话：020-123456789
网址：njpuji.com
邮 箱：[email protected]
Does everyone have the legal right to access social media, regardless of past sins?
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of a North Carolina law barring convicted sex offenders from accessing social media platforms also used by children. Lawyers advocating on behalf of one such offender, Lester Packingham, argued to the court that Facebook is so integral to everyday life that depriving an individual of access violates his or her First Amendment rights.
That's right: We're at a point where Facebook access may soon be considered a fundamental right.
SEE ALSO:Teens who follow the news on social media are more likely to support the First AmendmentWhile the specific case in question is narrowly focused on the North Carolina law, the ramifications of the court's decision, should it rule in favor of Packingham, could be significant. According to the Associated Press, three other states—Georgia, Kentucky, and Louisiana—have similar laws on the books. It's unclear what striking down North Carolina's law would mean for these states' laws, but it certainly wouldn't bode well.
The case got kicked off when, in 2010, Packingham took to Facebook to celebrate the dismissal of a traffic ticket.
‘‘No fine," wrote Packingham. "No Court costs. No nothing. Praise be to God. Wow. Thanks, Jesus."
"These sites have become embedded in our culture..."
He was arrested and convicted of a felony but successfully brought a challenge of the law all the way to the Supreme Court. And here's the thing: The justices appear to be on his side.
"Whether it's political community, whether it's religious community... these sites have become embedded in our culture as ways to communicate and ways to exercise our constitutional rights, haven't they?"Justice Elena Kagan asked of the state's lawyer tasked with defending the law, according to court transcripts.
The lawyer, Robert C. Montgomery, argued that Packingham could still engage with the world online—just not via Facebook.
"This is a part of the internet, but it's not the entire Internet that is being taken away from these offenders," Montgomery said of Facebook. "They can still have their own blog. They can read blogs. They can do podcasts."
The new public square.Credit: Carl Court/Getty ImagesMontgomery did not appear to persuade a majority of the justices, with Justice Anthony Kennedy observing that Twitter and Facebook are the de facto public square of the 21st century.
“The sites that Justice Kagan has described and their utility and the extent of their coverage are greater than the communication you could have ever had, even in the paradigm of the public square" he told the lawyer, according to court transcripts.
What's more, as the North Carolina law includes business-oriented platforms like LinkedIn, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made the point that restricting individuals from these sites can have economic impacts.
“Take something like LinkedIn, which many, many people in our society today are looking for jobs there, but high school students are permitted to look for jobs and to post their personal data on that site," she said.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., however, didn't seem convinced.
"I know there are people who think that life is not possible without Twitter and Facebook and these things, and that 2003 was the dark ages," he said. "But I don't know that—that any channels of communication that were available at that time have been taken away."
But his dissent does not appear to be enough to slow the justices down, with Wiredreporting that a majority will likely vote to overturn the North Carolina law.
If the court does strike down the law, it could have wide-ranging effects beyond Packingham's right to praise God online for allegedly getting him out of a traffic ticket. It all depends on how narrow the decision is.
Will the justices merely find that onlythe specific, 2008 North Carolina law is unconstitutional, or will it decide that access to social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook fall under the protection of the First Amendment?
If they lean toward the latter, it could represent a shift in how the legal system views our expression online—further blurring the line between IRL and the world of social media. And, perhaps most importantly, all those vacation photos you posted to Facebook would be considered constitutionally protected free speech. No matter what your friends say about them.
TopicsFacebookTwitterSupreme Court