Supreme Court weighs a constitutional right to social media access
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. While 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." 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." Montgomery 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 CourtIt all started with a ticket
"These sites have become embedded in our culture..."
A fundamental right to tweet
What happens next?
Featured Video For You
Here's another way to bury your pet — grow it into a tree
- 最近发表
- 随机阅读
-
- Pope says England are not 'one
- 营造浓厚氛围 推进文明旅游
- 闈掑矝钃濊壊缁忔祹鍖哄紩鏅烘垚鏋滅ず鑼冨熀鍦版柊澧?0鍚嶆垚鍛榑涓浗灞变笢缃慱闈掑矝
- 金砖峰会直击:海尔是印度消费者最爱的中国家电品牌
- 夜间献血模式“上线”
- 闈掑矝钃濊壊缁忔祹鍖哄紩鏅烘垚鏋滅ず鑼冨熀鍦版柊澧?0鍚嶆垚鍛榑涓浗灞变笢缃慱闈掑矝
- 青岛20个项目入围国家重点研发计划 获7.6亿元资助
- 加强监管整治依法从严惩处
- Best Labor Day headphones deals: Apple, Bose, Beats, and more on sale
- 閫傚悎鍏ㄧ悆200澶氬浗瀹剁殑鈥滄捣灏旂郴鍘ㄧ數鈥濅寒鐩窩IKB
- 招商银行青岛分行投贷联动业务助力科技企业腾飞
- 芦山县农产品质量安全监督检验检测站“双认证”通过专家组评审
- What to expect when a tech bubble bursts
- 招商银行青岛分行助力外贸企业快速成长
- 科普链接:雅安动植物基因库之雪鹑
- 联通众筹4.0现场会开幕 首推互联网操盘模式
- 夜间献血模式“上线”
- 海尔热水器CIKB秀全屋用水解决方案打安全牌
- 粤新携手,以足球为媒共促交往交流交融
- 12月28日,设施蔬菜生产田头课带你走入现代农业产业园
- 搜索
-
- 友情链接
-