SCOTUS: Packingham Transcript
Today the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in the case of Packingham v. N. Carolina. The case considers a constitutional right to access social media.
Transcript of the argument can be read here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-1194_0861.pdf
Not too crazy about how the justices, and even our lawyer/petitioner, seem to think the main problem with NC’s restrictions are that they are ‘overbroad’. I think they are ridiculous at their roots. However, I do like the reasoning that Justice Sotomayor provided. It’s also sad that the justices are still led to believe that those labeled as sex offenders are all highly likely to reoffend.
It’s hilarious to hear the NC respondent (Montgomery) say that sex offenders using social media ‘harvest information anonymously’ from children. On big social media sites, as long as you’re at least 13 years old, advertisers and businesses will track you, contact you, and use your personal information to ‘groom’ you as a consumer. I guess the imposition/danger is so great that those business weasels are forced to abide by an age of consent (13), too! Parents could actually teach their kids to keep their personal details private, and sites like Facebook could build tools to help them do that, but that might upset the business-minded predators who want to sell them everything, so …
Montgomery also indicates that NC sex offenders are allowed to go on sites that are adult-only. Sadly, if I started a non-sexual social website for adults only, and it started to threaten Facebook financially, I’d suddenly be sued, with the full financial backing of Facebook, by the parents of disenfranchised children who were refused access to the site.
Sadly, as people in this country continue to expect the worst character and behavior from each other, and not just sex-related, more ostracizing rules and attitudes will continue to separate them.
First I want to say I did not read the entire transcript. Pressed for time….but the part I did read does not sound good? What I am hearing in the Justices words is the same old tired rhetoric of “Yeah but they are a sex offender.” As though that makes any imposition ok….If I am getting that impression correctly it is really bad for cases going forward (in my opinion)
Karen – I suggest you read through the entire transcript. It was actually quite positive.
WHY ISN’T ANYONE FACT CHECKING THE ARGUMENTS HERE??
Where do these insane recidivism rates and all the numbers they throw around get their scientific basis from??
Nowhere is the answer. They are just scare tactics. Why isn’t the defense bringing this up?!?
You know JV, I just came there to ask the same question. If we have the data available, Why in hell did the lawyers for our side not speak up for the facts. The fact is the recidivism rate is around 5% not 80. The justices need to hear the truth. Yes, I realize this is about a first amendment issue, but you have to have “all the facts in evidence” so the clerks for the justices can do a PROPER job. Tell them is was Hooey that the lawyers from NC used old wrong data. It’s also important for Chief Justice Roberts to hear the actual facts of recidivism since it was his oral argument in Smith v. Doe 2003 that started all this BS!!!!