Brett Kendall reports in the WSJ:
WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether North Carolina can bar individuals on the state's sex-offender registry from accessing social-media websites such as Facebook.
The high court, in a brief written order, agreed to take up the appeal of Lester Packingham, who was convicted of violating the social-media ban after a Durham, N.C., police officer in 2010 found a Facebook post in which the defendant happily announced the dismissal of a traffic ticket. "Man God is Good!" the post said.
Mr. Packingham in 2002 pleaded guilty to taking indecent liberties with a 13-year-old when he was age 21.
A North Carolina law enacted in 2008 prohibits sex offenders from accessing social-networking sites when the offender knows that the site allows minors to become members. The Supreme Court will consider whether that law is allowed under the Constitution.
Packingham, a free citizen not under sentence is ordered by the government to refrain from First Amendment protected activities under a law enacted after his conviction.
In my view, the punitive vs. civil distinction really doesn't provide the correct basis for an analysis. Packingham's First Amendment rights are simply being taken from him. Doesn't this bother anyone?
The facts that the N.C. Court of Appeals initially reversed, there was a dissent in N.C. Supreme, and now SCOTUS has granted certiorari seem to me to indicate that it bothers quite a few people.
I think fed might be reasonably be asking if CJLF will author an amicus in this case arguing on behalf of First Amendment rights here. To the extent folks here think Citizens United was an important ruling for 1st A rights --- as I think fed and I do --- all ought to see the threat the NC laws pose to all free speech rights. First they came for the sex offenders, then the hunters, then ....?
Um, no. Kent actually, IIRC, at one point noted in here that the post facto nature of RSO laws were less than optimal.
If I am correct, C & C's limited resources are used solely to ensure that criminals get swift and sure punishment, not to help out RSOs.
I'm glad you think CU is important to protect First Amendment rights. I don't think our collective First Amendment rights are as important as showing our commitment to freedom in foisting gun criminals back on society.
As Federalist notes, CJLF's resources are limited. Whether we file an amicus brief in a case depends on many factors, including whether the issue comes within the core of our mission, whether other cases being briefed at the same time have priority, and whether the arguments we might make are covered by other parties.
On the latter point, free speech cases typically attract a boatload of amici supporting the speaker. For criminal cases in SCOTUS generally, defendants typically have far more supporting amici than the prosecution.
Putting aside the question of whether the position you suggest comes within our mission, I consider it highly unlikely that we would have an argument to make that is not already well covered.
It is not completely unheard of for CJLF to support a defendant. We have done so all or in part four times since I have been Legal Director. But it's rare, for good reasons.
Makes a lot of sense, Kent. Can you note/link to the 4 case in which you filed an amicus in support of a defendant?
Doug --
Could you note/link to the 4 cases in which you signed/wrote an amicus brief in support of the prosecution?
Oh...........wait...........Happy Halloween!
CJLF filed briefs in support of the defendant in People v. Gilmore, 249 Cal.Rptr. 914 (1988) on use of force to arrest by a private citizen, In re Christian S., 7 Cal.4th 768 (1994) on self-defense, and Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) on standing for Batson objections.
We filed a "brief in support of neither party," actually supporting the habeas petitioner in part and the state in part, in Jennings v. Stephens, 190 L.Ed.2d 662 (2015) on technical issues regarding appeal in habeas corpus cases.
Does an export report in support of prison official count, Bill? How about amici not in support of either party? How about amici requested by the court? Those have been among my most recent amici filings. I also wrote in support of selective incorporation of Heller in McDonald, which would have been a mostly pro-local prosecutor position. I also helped author two SCOTUS briefs that supported the anti-defendant rulings in circuit courts that DOJ did not defend in Irrizzary and Tapia.
So, it is not hard at all for me to come up with a half dozen pro prosecution briefs I have authored/signed in just the last 10 years. And I should note my resources are likely MUCH more limited than CJLF. And, while we are asking, Bill, how many pro defendant briefs have you filed?