WASHINGTON _ Police arrested Durham, N.C. resident and convicted sex offender Lester G. Packingham, Jr. after he posted a message praising God on Facebook.
On Monday, the Supreme Court will weigh Packingham's challenge to a North Carolina law that bans registered sex offenders from visiting online social networking sites that could be frequented by minors.
The justices must sort through Packingham's claim that the internet access restriction adopted by North Carolina in 2008 violates the First Amendment. The court's ruling will also guide other states.
The hourlong oral argument Monday morning returns the eight justices to the expanding realm of social media for the first time since 2015, when the court struck down the conviction of a Pennsylvania man charged with making threatening statements on Facebook.
The North Carolina law forbids registered sex offenders from accessing "commercial social networking websites" that permit minors to become members. The law specifies what it means by "social networking," to cover sites that allow communication among users and allow creation of profiles that can include photos or names, among other requirements.
"Sexual predators became increasingly adept at using social media to gather intimate information about minors' social lives, families, hobbies, hangouts, and the like," North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein's office said in a brief. "They then used this information to target unwitting victims."
There are about 20,000 registered sex offenders in North Carolina. More than 1,000 cases have been prosecuted under the state law that ensnared Packingham.
Thirteen states have joined in a brief supporting North Carolina. Many states have adopted similar laws, which often are challenged in court.
In 2014, for example, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a California law that required registered sex offenders to provide authorities with a "list of any and all internet identifiers established or used by the person." The California Legislature revised the law last year to correct the First Amendment violations.
Packingham is supported by civil libertarians and groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which cite the potentially vast reach of North Carolina's online restriction.
"Nearly 7 in 10 American adults regularly use at least one internet social networking service," the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted in a brief, adding that "Facebook alone has more than 1.79 billion monthly active users."
Facebook's reach in 2010 was only a third of that gifure. The social media company didn't even exist in 2002, when Packingham committed the acts that got him listed as a sex offender in the first place.
A 21-year-old college student at the time, Packingham was indicted in Cabarrus County on two counts of statutory rape of a 13-year-old. He subsequently pleaded guilty to a charge of taking indecent liberties with a child. He was given a suspended sentence, placed on two years' probation and required to register as a sex offender.
Packingham was off probation, but still on the sex offender registry, when he took to Facebook in April 2010 to celebrate the dismissal of a traffic ticket.
"Man God is good!" Packingham's post said. "No fine, no court costs, no nothing spent ... ..praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS."
A police officer saw the message, which Packingham had posted under a fictitious name. A North Carolina appeals court reversed his subsequent conviction, but the North Carolina Supreme Court restored the conviction and upheld the state law.
The case now turns on several crucial issues, including Packingham's claim that the law goes too far and effectively isolates people from the primary means of modern communication. The law's reach is open to dispute.
"The statute excludes registrants from the central platforms where, today, any North Carolinian can interact with his elected representatives, obtain a free online education, and find gainful employment," Packingham's attorneys at the Stanford Law School Litigation Clinic said in a brief.
Stein, the North Carolina attorney general, countered that the law "leaves open vast other options on the internet, including adult-only social networking sites" and "government sites (and) commercial sites like eBay, Yelp, and Amazon.com."
Stein further argues that the state law does not target any particular speech content, and so deserves more tolerant scrutiny from judges looking for potential First Amendment violations.
