Packingham, social media and why this is a critical case for Sex Offenders.

Lester Packingham posted something to Facebook thanking God for beating a traffic ticket.

The post wasn’t offensive, didn’t threaten anyone, contained nothing inherently criminal and was probably more benign than some of the stuff our president elect posts to his own social media account, but Mr. Packingham was convicted of a crime for that post. Why? Because Packingham is a registered sex offender and a North Carolina law prohibits sex offenders from “accessing” social media accounts such as Facebook and even the NewYorkTimes.com.

Packingham appealed his conviction to the Appellate court, who agreed with him, but the State appealed it to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which reversed it back, upholding his conviction and ruling that the North Carolina law banning sex offenders from social media is constitutional.

Fortunately, the saga does not end there and Packingham appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court, who incredibly agreed to hear his case in the near future!

Social Media has become an indispensable medium in today’s society. Worldwide, there are over 1.79 billion monthly active Facebook users. (Source: Facebook as of 11/02/16)

In 2016, 78 percent of U.S. Americans had a social media profile. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/273476/percentage-of-us-population-with-a-social-network-profile/), with roughly two-thirds (64%) of U.S. adults on Facebook, and half of those users getting their news there. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/24/how-social-media-is-reshaping-news/)

Social media re-connects families (http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Social-venture-connects-lost-loved-ones-with-9145724.php), helps individuals find cures to rare illnesses (https://ww2.kqed.org/futureofyou/2016/05/10/social-media-uncovers-rare-diagnosis-after-years-of-frustration/) and is used by 71% of users to make purchasing decisions (http://www.socialmediatoday.com/marketing/masroor/2015-05-28/social-media-biggest-influencer-buying-decisions).

The impact and utility of social media in today’s world is indisputable. It has become a necessary utility to function in today’s workplace and culture.

Restricting access to social media, especially for people who have long since served their sentence, is not just punishment, but it is permanently debilitating.

Lawmakers claim there is a nexus between sex offending and social media, but can’t that be argued for any category of crime? Burglars use social media to learn about their victim’s daily schedule and even what’s in their home to steal. (http://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/police/pages/how-burglars-use-social-media.aspx)  Burglars have a recidivism rate that’s at least ten times that of sex offenders (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17) but we don’t ban them.

Also, “sex offenders” (who have a VERY low recidivism rate) are not homogeneous. Why would we assume that someone whose crime, decades ago, had nothing do do with social media would do something now? How harsh is it to ban a teenager who had a consensual relationship with an underage partner from associating with family and friends on Facebook for life? Setting aside fairness and common sense, does the First Amendment allow for a law that bans former sex offenders from “accessing” certain social media and websites?

That is the issue that the Supreme Court of the United States will answer when they consider the Packingham case and the impact will be huge, as it sets an important precedent for all registered citizens in the United States.