Let me be as clear as I can to anyone who happens to read this posting. North Carolina’s ban on the use of social media by registered citizens who are not otherwise on post-release supervision or probation is absolutely, unequivocally null and void having been struck down, in its entirety, by the United States Supreme Court in June, 2017 (See Packingham v. North Carolina). Any attempt by a law enforcement agent in the state of North Carolina to enforce this ban against a registered citizen who is no longer under any form of court-ordered supervision will constitute a false arrest. Pure and simple.

The mere fact that the statute remains searchable is irrelevant to questions regarding its legitimacy. There are hundreds of laws on the books that can no longer be enforced. Sheriff Harrison knows that. Most of the sheriffs in the state know that. And if they have any questions about a certain statute’s authority, they should refer such questions to the Attorney General’s office for a legal opinion. What sheriffs and their deputies should NOT do is provide false and unreliable information to the citizens living in their counties.

Will North Carolina’s social media statute be re-written and eventually re-enacted by the state Legislature? It is probable that the state Legislature will attempt to craft a replacement statute. How it can write such a statute narrowly enough to avoid additional constitutional review is yet to be seen. Anything too broadly written would be easily enjoined by a federal District Court. Anything written narrowly enough to pass scrutiny under the Packingham analysis is likely to be a fairly benign and practically useless law. And anything that’s even borderline constitutional will immediately be the subject of a new lawsuit by NCRSOL and our attorneys….and very likely enjoined before it’s ever able to take effect.

If you are a registered citizen living in North Carolina and you are no longer under any form of court-ordered supervision, you have a First Amendment right to access and use social media. There are still social media platforms that have corporate policies restricting your use. But as of June 19, 2017, the state of North Carolina and any derivative law enforcement agency of ANY jurisdiction within the state of North Carolina has absolutely no authority to arrest you for using social media.

However, you are still required to report your online identifiers!  VERY IMPORTANT.

If you are a registered citizen living in North Carolina (and no longer under ANY form of supervision) and have been informed by local law enforcement that you cannot use social media, please contact us immediately. If you or someone you know is threatened with arrest for using social media, please contact us immediately. You can find our contact information at the top of the home page.

“All persons” include people on the registry for sex crimes according to the ruling handed down Monday. Packingham v. North Carolina analyzed the extent to which North Carolina’s draconian measure to prevent anyone on the sex offender registry from using social media was necessary and legitimate. Justice Alito mentioned in his concurring opinion that the statute was so broad that accessing Amazon and Walmart could be construed as a violation. Not only was the law extremely broad, but the facts of the case were ripe for a challenge.

In 2002, at age 21, Lester Packingham engaged in sexual wrongdoing with a minor. He was convicted and served out his sentence. Flash forward eight years to 2010, when Lester logged on to Facebook to jubilantly praise God for a dismissed parking ticket. A North Carolina detective discovered the post and arrested him for violating the state ban on accessing Facebook.

Three facts are important to remember. One, Lester was no longer under community supervision, but he was still listed on the state’s registry for sex crimes. Two, Lester was not arrested for committing another act of sexual wrongdoing, nor was he ever convicted for using the internet to engage in sexual wrongdoing. Three, over 1,000 people have been prosecuted under this law since 2008. These facts implicate the North Carolina statute as more of a tool to restrict First Amendment rights and incarcerate people, with less utility given to preventing sexual abuse.

Please read David’s full commentary on the Sex Law and Policy Center website.

At 21, Mr. Packingham was convicted of taking indecent liberties with a minor—a non-contact offense in North Carolina. As a result he was placed on North Carolina’s sex offender registry and subjected to the state’s prohibition against having or accessing an account on any online platform that allowed exchange of ideas and on which minors were allowed to create and maintain accounts.

In 2010, Packingham violated this law when he took to Facebook to claim, “God is good,” over having a traffic ticket dismissed. As a result he was arrested and charged, not for what he said but for where he said it. He and his attorneys have fought the charges for the past six years, a fight that culminated in arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the heart of the argument is the First Amendment right to free speech. Packingham has satisfied all court-imposed requirements and has successfully completed his criminal sentence. He is under no state or federal supervision. He has not re-offended or come under scrutiny for any illegal activity except using Facebook to express his joy about the outcome of a traffic ticket.

The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) and North Carolina RSOL supported Packingham’s First Amendment claims by way of an amicus brief filed on his behalf. We contend, as do Mr. Packingham and his attorneys, that depriving over 17,000 North Carolina citizens of social media access just because they are on the sex offender registry is an egregious abuse of the state’s power and does virtually nothing to address the state’s compelling interest in protecting minors.

The ban applies to all registrants regardless of whether or not their original offenses involved a minor, whether or not those offenses involved Internet use, or whether the persons were engaging in “stalking” or “grooming” behavior towards a minor. Such a ban makes illegal perfectly innocent and legal activities such as participating in or even following political discussions on Twitter, advertising one’s home business on Facebook, or commenting on a variety of opinion pieces on almost all online media comment platforms.

If the state of North Carolina is convinced that its youth are at risk from citizens on the registry due to contact through online activities, a ban on such activities can surely be tailored more narrowly to address real criminal conduct rather than cutting such a wide swath through the heart of the First Amendment.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Here’s how other media outlets are covering oral arguments:
ScotusBlog
U.S. News & World Report
Bloomberg