Comments on: North Carolina versus First Amendment: SCOTUS to decide

By: Michael A. Lewis Sr.

Michael A. Lewis Sr. — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:48:03 +0000

In reply to rwvnral. Ok Thank you

By: rwvnral

rwvnral — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:44:34 +0000

In reply to Michael A. Lewis Sr.. The only deadlines for the United States Supreme Court are those which they set for themselves. So, there is no way to predict when the Court will issue a final ruling, but it is very likely to occur before the end of June.

By: Michael A. Lewis Sr.

Michael A. Lewis Sr. — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:38:55 +0000

How long before we know what SCOTUS decides?
Is there a deadline they have to meet for decision?

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:41:06 +0000

I have similar concerns about the NC legislature’s penchant for replacing bad law with worse law (see new exclusion zone laws to replace unconstitutional one). But at the same time, I see reasons for hope. Federal courts, including the 4th district that struck down the aforementioned exclusion zone law, are beginning to seek more than “common-sense” rationale for registry laws. No state can produce compelling research that says these laws are necessary. Which in turn begs the question: If these laws do not reduce sex crimes, do not reduce recidivism, and therefore do not affect the stated civic objective, what purpose do they really serve? Simply put, they are punitive. And a punitive scheme clearly violates ex post facto laws, and potentially violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. I may be an optimist, but I see an end to the registry (or at least an end for all but those independently deemed to be “sexually violent predators”) within the next five to ten years.

I think the Packingham case is very important for obvious free speech reasons. But perhaps the most important thing we will learn is whether SCOTUS is finally ready to re-examine their “frightening and high” beliefs of RSO recidivism rates.

By: NCRSO

NCRSO — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:14:27 +0000

I and many other NC registered citizens are excited to see what the results of this will be. I’ve read the amicus briefs from both sides, and the state’s defense sounds like a Trump supporter talking nonstop about Hillary – dancing around the issue that’s actually being argued, and arguing every other point around it. The lawyers for Packingham were coherent and make an excellent case (on paper).

It seems likely enough to me that [the royal] “we” will win this case. The real question will be: how quickly will the NC legislature scrape up another law to replace it with, how poorly-written will it be (since they will be rushing), and will it actually make things worse?

Part of the argument is that the scope of the existing law is too broad and/or vague. What if North Carolina decides to tighten the belt and simply restricts all access to the internet, like some states do? Or, more realistically, if they attempt to actually keep a list of permissible/non-permissible services?

They won’t have any sympathy that I have thousands of dollars invested into the Google ecosystem (photos, music, movies, apps, and even devices) if they decide to ban RSOs from having Google accounts (a Google account starts with GMail but encompasses Google+, YouTube, and many other services that may be arguably “social” in nature, even though one may choose not to use these features of the account).

I’ll grant that I’m alarmist and tend to start by assuming the worst, but there can be no doubt that they will attempt to replace the law if Packingham wins. The question is, will it be for the better or for the worse?