Packingham v. North Carolina

In Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously (8-0, with Neil Gorsuch taking no part in the decision) established a full First Amendment right to access and post to the internet.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:

“

A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. The Court has sought to protect the right to speak in this spatial context. A basic rule, for example, is that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 796, 109 S. Ct. 2746, 105 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1989). Even in the modern era, these places are still essential venues for public gatherings to celebrate some views, to protest others, or simply to learn and inquire. While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace—the “vast democratic forums of the Internet” in general, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 868, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997), and social media in particular. Seven in ten American adults use at least one Internet social networking service. Brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae 5-6. One of the most popular of these sites is Facebook, the site used by petitioner leading to his conviction in this case. According to sources cited to the Court in this case, Facebook has 1.79 billion active users. Id., at 6. This is about three times the population of North America.

”

Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017).

Though they concurred in the invalidation of an overly broad North Carolina statute limiting posting on the internet, Justice Sam Alito, as joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, objected to Justice Kennedy's court opinion as follows:

“

I cannot join the opinion of the Court, however, because of its undisciplined dicta. The Court is unable to resist musings that seem to equate the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks.

”

Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1738 (2017) (Alito, J., concurring).