Freedom of speech and access to social media: Packingham v North Carolina
Abstract
In its decision in Packingham v North Carolina, the Supreme Court of the United States found a North Carolina law that barred registered sex offenders from ac- cessing commercial social networking web sites (social media) as unconstitutional, be- cause of the law’s overbroad restriction of lawful first amendment speech. This comment analyzes the details of the constitutional review by the Supreme Court, reviewing the general criteria used in such reviews, using the arguments presented in the case. It also briefly considers the possible consequences of the decision.Keywords:
Freedom of speech, social networks, internet, First AmendmentReferences
Balkin, Jack (2004). «Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information society». New York University Law Review, 79 (1): 1-58. Disponible en http://bit.ly/2PcE0AK.
Bernal-Pulido, Carlos (2014). El principio de proporcionalidad y los derechos fundamentales. 4.ª ed. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.
Botero Marino, Catalina (2013). «Jurisprudencia nacional sobre libertad de expresión y acceso a la información». Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Organización de Estados Americanos.
Brennan Jr., William (1965). «The Supreme Court and the Meiklejohn interpretation of the first amendment». Harvard Law Review, 79 (1): 1-20. DOI: 10.2307/1338856.
Crane, Paul (2006). «True threats and the issue of intent». Virginia Law Review, 92 (6): 1.225-1.277. Disponible en http://bit.ly/2vTwumg.
Flagg, Barbara (1993). «“Was blind, but now I see”: White race consciousness and the requirement of discriminatory intent». Michigan Law Review, 91 (5): 953-1.017. DOI: 10.2307/1289678.
Friedlib, Linda (2005). «The epitome of an insult: A constitutional approach to designated fighting words». The University of Chicago Law Review, 71 (1): 385-415. Disponible en http://bit.ly/2vPupIc.
Kagan, Elena (1996). «Private speech, public purpose: The role of Governmental motive in first amendment doctrine». University of Chicago Law Review, 63 (2): 413-517. DOI: 10.2307/1600235.
Mannheimer, Michael (1993). «The fighting words doctrine». Columbia Law Review, 93 (6): 1.527-1.571. DOI: 10.2307/1123082.
Meiklejohn, Alexander (1948). Free speech and its relation to self-government. Clark: The Lawbook Exchange.
Miller, Philip (1992). «New technology, old problem: Determining the first amendment status of electronic information services». Fordham Law Review, 61 (5): 1.147-1.201. Disponible en http://bit.ly/2OIucgN.
Siegel, Reva (1997). «Why equal protection no longer protects: The evolving forms of status-enforcing State action». Stanford Law Review, 49 (5): 1.111-1.148. Disponible en http://bit.ly/2OI85Hc.
Stone, Geoffrey (1987). «Content-neutral restrictions». The University of Chicago Law Review, 54 (1): 46-118. DOI: 10.2307/1599715.
Wolak, Janis, Lindsey Evans, Stephanie Nguyen y Denise Hines (2013). «Online predators: Myth versus reality». New England Journal of Public Policy, 25 (1): 1-11. Disponible en http://bit.ly/2OFZ1D2.
Bernal-Pulido, Carlos (2014). El principio de proporcionalidad y los derechos fundamentales. 4.ª ed. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.
Botero Marino, Catalina (2013). «Jurisprudencia nacional sobre libertad de expresión y acceso a la información». Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Organización de Estados Americanos.
Brennan Jr., William (1965). «The Supreme Court and the Meiklejohn interpretation of the first amendment». Harvard Law Review, 79 (1): 1-20. DOI: 10.2307/1338856.
Crane, Paul (2006). «True threats and the issue of intent». Virginia Law Review, 92 (6): 1.225-1.277. Disponible en http://bit.ly/2vTwumg.
Flagg, Barbara (1993). «“Was blind, but now I see”: White race consciousness and the requirement of discriminatory intent». Michigan Law Review, 91 (5): 953-1.017. DOI: 10.2307/1289678.
Friedlib, Linda (2005). «The epitome of an insult: A constitutional approach to designated fighting words». The University of Chicago Law Review, 71 (1): 385-415. Disponible en http://bit.ly/2vPupIc.
Kagan, Elena (1996). «Private speech, public purpose: The role of Governmental motive in first amendment doctrine». University of Chicago Law Review, 63 (2): 413-517. DOI: 10.2307/1600235.
Mannheimer, Michael (1993). «The fighting words doctrine». Columbia Law Review, 93 (6): 1.527-1.571. DOI: 10.2307/1123082.
Meiklejohn, Alexander (1948). Free speech and its relation to self-government. Clark: The Lawbook Exchange.
Miller, Philip (1992). «New technology, old problem: Determining the first amendment status of electronic information services». Fordham Law Review, 61 (5): 1.147-1.201. Disponible en http://bit.ly/2OIucgN.
Siegel, Reva (1997). «Why equal protection no longer protects: The evolving forms of status-enforcing State action». Stanford Law Review, 49 (5): 1.111-1.148. Disponible en http://bit.ly/2OI85Hc.
Stone, Geoffrey (1987). «Content-neutral restrictions». The University of Chicago Law Review, 54 (1): 46-118. DOI: 10.2307/1599715.
Wolak, Janis, Lindsey Evans, Stephanie Nguyen y Denise Hines (2013). «Online predators: Myth versus reality». New England Journal of Public Policy, 25 (1): 1-11. Disponible en http://bit.ly/2OFZ1D2.
