Last week’s decision in Packingham v. North Carolina is getting a lot of attention in part because of this fact checker column in the Washington Post. Packingham involved a challenge to a North Carolina law that severely restricted the ability of registered sex offenders to access various websites, including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. All eight participating Justices agreed that the law violated the First Amendment because it was unable to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. Although the Court acknowledged that protecting children from sex offenders was a legitimate government interest, the law burdened more speech than was necessary to further that legitimate interest. Full Analysis
Related posts
-
Frank Lindsay’s Health Continues to Improve
ACSOL leader Frank Lindsay’s health continues to improve although he remains hospitalized due to low oxygen... -
Federal Court Stops Lawsuit Challenging Denial of Base Access
A federal district court judge has stopped a lawsuit filed on behalf of a registrant who... -
Santa Cruz judge denies general ‘transient’ release to [former] “sexually violent predator”
SANTA CRUZ — The bid to release a twice-convicted rapist into the community without a set,...
I am glad so called “sex offender recidivism” myth is gaining some attentions lately based on Samuel Alito latest misleading statement in the packingham case. Great job on WaPo for posting that info!
Packingham, both the case and the man himself, has done more for our cause than any other recent activity that I can recall. It has brought the discussion plainly into major media, and the truths are being told. Hopefully we can build on this with a nice 7-2 (Alito, Thomas..tho he seems to be sliding towards more and more civil liberties) on Snyder in the next term!
I think if/when the scores of restrictions on residency and presence are taken away due to being punitive, the “fun” of the registry will fade and funding with it. I really think that’s where we’re headed, thankfully. I’m not confident enough yet to believe registries will ever go away or be non-public, though.
–AJ
Packingham was an important victory. And this article/analysis was certainly an enjoyable read. Thanks for posting it.????
So the study the article uses is the 1994 study. Granted it has when commited against a child, but the newest study should be the one used which was dated 2016 with a study from 2005-2010.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510_st.pdf
It took me a little digging to find this on the DOJ website. I guess they, in part they want it that way.
Someone should send this link to the author of the article.