Now, PACKINGHAM v. NORTH CAROLINA, this is the most recent and most interesting US SC case brought to it from the NC SC. Basically, a former sex offender who served his time was being barred from accessing Facebook and was charged under NC law with a Felony for creating an account, because the state was trying to protect children from him stalking them. The US SC overruled NC State Law, essentially saying that First Amendment rights applied when it comes to access to social media like Facebook and Twitter, because they are acting as Public Squares where people get access to current events and information and that is where most political speech is occurring. So the US SC concluded those corporations had no right to infringe on this guy's First Amendment access rights.
supremecourt.gov
Here's their ruling:
By prohibiting sex offenders from using those web- sites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing cur- rent events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”Reno, 521 U. S., at 870. In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exer- cise of First Amendment rights. It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even con- victed criminals—and in some instances especially con- victed criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives. it follows with even greater force that the State may not enact this complete bar to the exercise of First Amendment rights on websites integral to the fabric of our modern society and culture. It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S., at 255. That is what North Carolina has done here. Its law must be held invalid. The judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. So to sum up, Brumar, my statements to you are proving to be true. Already the Supreme Court has ruled that access to social media may not be curtailed, especially when it comes to political speech. So Twitter and Facebook and Google who are currently in the process of banning and suppressing conservative voices are actually acting contrary to settled US Supreme Court Law, which is the law of the land. Those guys just don't have good enough lawyers. Otherwise, they could fight this all the way to the top and win their access back. If this sex offender can do it, then it would be easier for someone like Alex Jones or any other person to do it. Terms of Use is no defense for a corporation in the courts. |
