Home » Mundo » Supreme Court strike law banning sex offenders on social media
supreme-court-strike-law-banning-sex-offenders-on-social-media.JPG

With a nod to the importance of social media in American life, the Supreme Court signaled Monday it could strike down a North Carolina law that bars convicted sex offenders from Facebook, Twitter and other popular sites. No fine, no court costs, no nothing spent … Packingham, who was required to register as a sex offender after he pleaded guilty to taking “indecent liberties” with a minor, ran afoul of the North Carolina law when he praised God on Facebook for the dismissal of his traffic tickets.The North Carolina law bans access not just to what people consider to social-media sites, but also any sites that enable some form of connection between visitors, which would include YouTube, Wikipedia, and even the New York Times. Packingham was prosecuted, convicted of a felony, and received a suspended sentence despite his lawyers’ argument that the 2008 law infringes upon his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.Packingham received a suspended sentence for having sex with a 13-year-old girl he claimed to be dating when he was 21 years old. He served 10 months in prison. BlackBerry KeyOne Launched; Specs and Price Details | Shipment By April 2017
The device runs on the latest Android 7.1 OS and powered by the Snapdragon 625 octa-core processor with 3GB RAM and 32GB storage. The smartphone has a 12-megapixel rear camera with a Sony IMX378 sensor – reportedly the same one present on the Google Pixel. Packingham said his constitutional right to free speech is being violated by the law that bans him from using social media. A North Carolina appeals court reversed his subsequent conviction, but the North Carolina Supreme Court restored the conviction and upheld the state law. The state court noted that Packingham could still use other websites, and that the law furthered a governmental interest of protecting children.A police officer saw the message, which Packingham had posted under a fictitious name.The four liberal justices seemed concerned about how broad the North Carolina law is, one saying it “dramatically” limits free speech. 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.Justice Elena Kagan was even more pointed, as she hammered North Carolina Senior Deputy Attorney General Robert C. Montgomery with observations about the omnipresence of social media in modern society. Trump ban: French historian detained for 10 hours
I don’t understand why he would have been in for the several hours that he was. Rousso was legally traveling to the United States as a French citizen. “Typically, there’s not the transparent amount of information or the anonymity that comes with the social networking website in which you can click on a link and go find out information about someone that you don’t know”, he said.A police officer in Durham, North Carolina who was working to hunt down sex offenders online read the post.Update: Per the Associated Press, five of the eight sitting justices signaled during oral arguments Monday that they were leaning toward striking down the North Carolina law, with Justice Ginsberg saying, “The law does not operate in some sleepy First Amendment quarter. It just keeps them off of certain web sites”. Thirteen states have joined a brief supporting the attorney general’s brief.Montgomery said there were non-social network alternatives those on sex-offender registries could utilize, such as plain old websites. The law doesn’t apply only to people who used the Internet to commit a sexual offense, she stressed, but instead applies to everyone. Louisiana amended its statute to comply with the court decision. Le Pen lashes out at rivals as Macron tops latest polls
Fillon has pledged to stay in the race come what may, after saying for weeks that he would step down if he were put under formal investigation. 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. They are often precluded from any work around children, living near schools and in some cases can’t use public parks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Free sex videos