Sex Offenders Can't Be Banned From Social Media, Supreme Court Says

WASHINGTON, DC — The Supreme Court struck down a state law Monday in the case of Packingham v. North Carolina that banned sex offenders from social media sites, such as Twitter and Facebook in a unanimous 8-0 ruling. The court found that the law violated the First Amendment.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who only recently joined the court, did not hear the case and did therefore did not weigh in on the ruling.

The law specifically banned those on sex offender registries from going on social networks that "the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members."

"Today, one of the most important places to exchange views is cyberspace, particularly social media," writes Justice Kennedy in the ruling. The court holds that blanket bans on sex offenders use of social media therefore unacceptably restricts the speech, expression and ability for sex offenders to engage in the public discourse, as protected by the Constitution.

Related: Kids And Social Media: How Young Is Too Young?

"The statute here enacts a prohibition unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens," Kennedy writes. "With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights."

He continues: "Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, particularly if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.

Kennedy argues that the court has never allowed a law with such broad restrictions to stand.

In its argument, North Carolina cited laws that prevent political campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place as an analogous example of an example limitation of first amendment rights. However, the ruling notes that this restriction is far more circumscribed than the the North Carolina law and is designed "to protect the fundamental right to vote."

According to the court, more than 1,000 people were charged for violating the North Carolina law. One of those charged appealed the conviction, which eventually ended up before the court in this case.

Read the full ruling>>

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite