Skip to content

Generated Source Mirror

This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.

📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed

  • Status: draft
  • Sources: 3
  • Relationships: 4
  • Research debt items: 2

Packingham v. North Carolina

Summary

Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), held unanimously that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media websites violated the First Amendment, establishing that the internet and social media are protected spaces for the exercise of free speech rights.

Verified Facts

  • The case citation is 582 U.S. 98 (2017), No. 15-1194.1
  • The case was decided on June 19, 2017.1
  • The decision was unanimous (8-0, with Justice Kagan recused from the case or joining in the judgment).1
  • North Carolina law made it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a commercial social networking website where the site permits minor children to become members or create personal web pages.1
  • The Court held that the North Carolina statute impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment.1
  • The Court explained that social media websites are used for a wide range of lawful activities far beyond their potential misuse.1
  • The opinion described the internet as the modern public square and characterized social media as among the most important places for the exchange of views.1

Historical Context

The case arose when Lester Packingham, a registered sex offender, posted on Facebook about a traffic ticket being dismissed. He was prosecuted under the North Carolina statute. The case reached the Supreme Court as the first major test of whether the government can broadly restrict access to internet platforms.

The Court's opinion is significant for its broad statements about the constitutional importance of internet access and social media as forums for speech. Justice Kennedy's opinion described cyberspace as the most important place for the exchange of views in modern society. The Court held that even when the government has a compelling interest (protecting children), it cannot use means that broadly suppress lawful speech — in this case, by banning access to major internet platforms entirely.

Concurring Opinion

Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, concurred in the judgment only. The Alito concurrence agreed the North Carolina statute was unconstitutional but cautioned against the majority's sweeping language about the internet as a public forum. Key limitations expressed:

  • The concurrence warned against equating the internet with traditional public forums, noting this could limit the government's ability to address legitimate online harms.
  • Alito argued the majority's opinion was "undisciplined" and unnecessarily broad, potentially constraining future legislation.
  • The concurrence would have struck down the statute on narrower grounds — that it was not sufficiently tailored to serve its stated interest in protecting children.
  • Justice Gorsuch took no part in the case.

This concurrence signals that while the Court unanimously supports internet access rights, there is disagreement about how broadly to extend public forum doctrine to cyberspace.

Significance for Software Companies

This case establishes that access to internet platforms is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. It limits the government's ability to restrict who can use internet services and platforms. For software companies, this precedent strengthens the argument that broad government restrictions on access to or distribution through internet platforms must satisfy First Amendment scrutiny. It supports the principle that internet-based services are forums for constitutionally protected expression.

Relationships

Sources

  1. SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII: Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (Cornell LII).

Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):

Research Debt

  • Connect to later cases applying this precedent to internet access restrictions.
  • Relate to platform deplatforming and government-compelled censorship debates.

Document metadata

  • Decision date: 2017-06-19
  • Last verified: 2026-07-19

  1. SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII — Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (Cornell LII). Primary authority. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩