Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2016 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

PACKINGHAM v. NORTH CAROLINA 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

No. 15–1194.  Argued February 27, 2017—Decided June 19, 2017 

North  Carolina  law  makes  it  a  felony  for  a  registered  sex  offender  “to 
access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offend-
er knows that the site permits minor children to become members or
to  create  or  maintain  personal  Web  pages.”    N. C.  Gen.  Stat.  Ann. 
§§14–202.5(a), (e).  According to sources cited to the Court, the State
has prosecuted over 1,000 people for violating this law, including pe-
titioner,  who  was  indicted  after  posting  a  statement  on  his  personal
Facebook profile about a positive experience in traffic court.  The trial 
court  denied  petitioner’s  motion  to  dismiss  the  indictment  on  the 
ground that the law violated the First Amendment.  He was convict-
ed  and  given  a  suspended  prison  sentence.    On  appeal,  the  State 
Court  of  Appeals  struck  down  §14–202.5  on  First  Amendment 
grounds, but the State Supreme Court reversed.  

Held: The North Carolina statute impermissibly restricts lawful speech

in violation of the First Amendment.  Pp. 4–10.

(a)  A  fundamental  First  Amendment  principle  is  that  all  persons 
have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, af-
ter  reflection,  speak  and  listen  once  more.    Today,  one  of  the  most
important places to exchange views is cyberspace, particularly social
media,  which  offers  “relatively  unlimited,  low-cost  capacity  for  com-
munication of all kinds,” Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 
U. S.  844,  870,  to  users  engaged  in  a  wide  array  of  protected  First
Amendment activity on any number of diverse topics.  The Internet’s 
forces and directions are so new, so protean, and so far reaching that
courts  must  be  conscious  that  what  they  say  today  may  be  obsolete 
tomorrow.  Here, in one of the first cases the Court has taken to ad-
dress the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern 
Internet, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting 
that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast