US Supreme Court: People should not be banned from social media

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a ruling that authorities cannot prohibit a man convicted of a sexual offense from using social media.

The case revolves around Lester Packingham, a convicted sex offender who admitted in 2002 to having had sex with a 13-year-old girl as a 21-year-old. In 2010, the state of North Carolina banned Packingham from using Facebook. This ban was imposed on the basis of a law in this state that prohibits registered sex offenders from accessing a commercial social networking site if they know that this website allows minors to create a profile.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that out, stating that such a law, which prohibits access to social media altogether, violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It enshrines freedom of expression. According to the judges, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all individuals should have access to places where they can express their views, hear other opinions, and engage in discussion after some reflection. According to the judge, this also applies and sometimes especially to convicted persons; on the contrary, they can benefit from access to places where ideas are exchanged, especially if they are trying to improve their lives.

According to the judges, North Carolina has failed to demonstrate why the ban should be so broad and why the law is necessary to keep convicted sex offenders away from vulnerable victims. The court ruled that although the law serves a legitimate purpose, it may not go further in limiting freedom of expression than is strictly necessary. The judges believe that the law goes too far in its application; According to the criteria, sex offenders can also be denied access to websites such as Amazon and The Washington Post, as they also allow profiles with photos and names to be created, and allow users to communicate with each other.