Packingham v. North Carolina (15-1194)

argument 15-1194

Packingham v. North Carolina

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central constitutional issue in Packingham v. North Carolina?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 15-1194, Packingham v. North Carolina. Mr. Goldberg.

Mr. Goldberg 0:07

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, there are three principal features of North Carolina's law that make it a stark abridgment of the freedom of speech. First, Section 202.5 reaches vast swaths of core First Amendment activity that is totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose. Mr. Packingham was not accused of communicating with or viewing the profile of a minor. He violated Section 202.5 by speaking to his friends and family about his experience in traffic court. And if today he were to view or respond to any of the thousands of Twitter messages about his case in this court, that would be a felony. Second, the law does not operate in some sleepy First Amendment corner.

Mr. Goldberg 0:55

It operates and forbids speech on the very platforms on which Americans today are most likely to communicate, to organize for social change, and to petition their government. Third, Section 202.5 is a criminal law, Your Honor, that imposes punishment for protected First Amendment activity without any regard to individual culpability or lack of culpability.

Sonia Sotomayor 1:23

Could a State impose this restriction as a condition of parole?

Mr. Goldberg 1:29

Your Honor, I think they have much more authority to impose things as a condition of parole, and States do this all the time. They limit people's First Amendment rights. I think that if you had something that was as sweeping as this for life, for anybody who had committed a sex offense, I don't think they could do that.

John G. Roberts 1:50

Justice Ginsburg?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:52

Yes. The most fundamental right is taken away from ex-fundamentals by some states, prohibit ex-felons from voting. Some states and the federal government prohibits being in bearing arms. Those are constitutional rights.

Mr. Goldberg 2:14

Right, Your Honor. Sue? Both of those rights are different from the First Amendment. They're equally fundamental, but they are different. So in the case of voting, North Carolina does not take away. North Carolina draws the line at people who have completed their parole, their period of supervised release. But in Richardson v. Ramirez, the Court looked to the text and history and tradition and said in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, there was affirmative sanction for felon disenfranchisement in If you look at that same section, which dealt with the people who rebelled in the Civil War, you didn't need to restore their First Amendment rights. And with the Second Amendment, when somebody is convicted of a crime, they immediately lose their Second Amendment rights.

Mr. Goldberg 3:02

They don't lose their First Amendment rights. So in the Simon & Schuster case, this Court vindicated the rights of somebody who was a serial killer who wanted to write a from prison where he was serving a life sentence for murder about his experience. It's a little

John G. Roberts 3:15

difficult to look at the text and history. We don't have a lot of history here concerning access to websites and all the sort of things we're dealing with here. So I don't think that's a very useful guide.

Mr. Goldberg 3:29

I agree, Your Honor, but I think when you look at, when we talk about the history, the history is there isn't a tradition or a history of taking away people's First Amendment rights. When the Court said First Amendment rights are inalienable. It had a meaning. My

John G. Roberts 3:45

point is, though, you don't have a lot of history of having such sites or access where they can provide broad access to minors of the sort that is problematic with respect to this individual. Well,

Mr. Goldberg 4:03

I don't disagree with you. We know as with violent video games, as with any manner of new technologies that the Court has confronted, there isn't a framing era or reconstruction era analog, but there is no history when you talk about all of the things that the State historically has restricted. They've never said you lose your right to publish a newspaper because you've been convicted. Suppose

Samuel A. Alito 4:30

we try to translate this into terms that would be familiar at the time of the adoption of the First Amendment. So suppose the State enacted a law prohibiting anyone convicted of kidnapping children from visiting a nursery school.