Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Packingham v. North Carolina

Supreme Court of the United States · 2017 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFree SpeechInternet speechSocial mediaFirst AmendmentFree Speech Clausesocial media

Facts

North Carolina made it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a commercial social networking website when the offender knows the site permits minors to become members or create or maintain personal webpages. Petitioner, a registered sex offender because of a 2002 conviction for taking indecent liberties with a child, used Facebook in 2010 to post a message celebrating the dismissal of a traffic ticket. Police investigating possible violations of the statute identified him through the post, and he was indicted and convicted under the law. The State did not allege that petitioner contacted a minor or committed any other illicit act on the Internet.

Issue

Whether North Carolina may, consistent with the First Amendment, make it a felony for registered sex offenders to access social media and other covered websites that allow minors to be members or maintain personal pages. More specifically, whether this broad restriction on access to social networking websites is a permissible speech regulation.

Rule

Even assuming a law is content neutral, it is unconstitutional under the First Amendment if it fails intermediate scrutiny by burdening substantially more speech than necessary to further a significant governmental interest. A State may enact specific, narrowly tailored laws aimed at unprotected criminal conduct, but it may not broadly suppress lawful speech and access to forums for lawful speech as a way to prevent unlawful acts.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon makes it a felony for any person on the state's sex-offender registry to access any website that allows users to create profiles and exchange messages if minors may join the site. The ban applies to major platforms used for job hunting, neighborhood discussion, and political advocacy. Aaron Mills, who finished his sentence years ago, is prosecuted after logging onto a community forum in Portland to discuss a ballot measure.

Aaron challenges the law under the First Amendment. What is the strongest argument that the law is unconstitutional?

Explanation. The majority assumed content neutrality and applied intermediate scrutiny. Under that standard, the law must be narrowly tailored and may not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further a significant governmental interest. A broad prohibition on accessing major sites used for employment, politics, and public discussion forecloses lawful speech in central modern forums, so it is not narrowly tailored.