Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

10 

PACKINGHAM v. NORTH CAROLINA 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

II 
While  I  thus  agree  with  the  Court  that  the  particular
law  at  issue  in  this  case  violates  the  First  Amendment,  I 
am  troubled  by  the  Court’s  loose  rhetoric.    After  noting
that  “a  street  or  a  park  is  a  quintessential  forum  for  the 
exercise of First Amendment rights,” the Court states that
“cyberspace” and “social media in particular” are now “the
most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange 
of  views.”  Ante,  at  4–5.    The  Court  declines  to  explain
what this  means with respect to  free speech law, and the 
Court  holds  no  more  than  that  the  North  Carolina  law 
fails  the  test  for  content-neutral  “time,  place,  and  man-
ner”  restrictions.    But  if  the  entirety  of  the  internet  or
even just “social media” sites16 are the 21st century equiv-
alent  of  public  streets  and  parks,  then  States  may  have
little  ability  to  restrict  the  sites  that  may  be  visited  by
even  the  most  dangerous  sex  offenders.  May  a  State
preclude  an  adult  previously  convicted  of  molesting  chil-
dren  from  visiting  a  dating  site  for  teenagers?    Or  a  site 
where  minors  communicate  with  each  other  about  per-
sonal problems?  The Court should be more attentive to the 
implications  of  its  rhetoric  for,  contrary  to  the  Court’s 
suggestion,  there  are  important  differences  between  cy-
berspace and the physical world. 

I will mention a few that are relevant to internet use by
sex offenders.  First, it is easier for parents to monitor the 
physical  locations  that  their  children  visit  and  the  indi-
viduals  with  whom  they  speak  in  person  than  it  is  to 
monitor  their  internet  use.  Second,  if  a  sex  offender  is 
seen  approaching  children  or  loitering  in  a  place  fre- 

—————— 

sites discussed above would satisfy the First Amendment.  Until such a 
law is before us, it is premature to address that question. 

16 As  the  law  at  issue  here  shows,  it  is  not  easy  to  provide  a  precise
definition of a “social media” site, and the Court makes no effort to do 
so.  Thus, the scope of its dicta is obscure.