Mediaboss Marketing

U.S. Supreme Court

Posted Jun 19, 2017 09:18 am CDT

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Shutterstock

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a North Carolina law that makes it a felony for a registered sex offender to access social networking websites that can be used by children.

The law, which bans sexual offenders from using websites like Facebook and Twitter, violates the First Amendment, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion (PDF). His opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The law was challenged by Lester Packingham of Durham, who pleaded guilty in 2002 to taking indecent liberties with a 13-year-old girl when he was a 21-year-old college student.

Packingham was convicted of violating the ban because of his Facebook post declaring Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks Jesus! to celebrate dismissal of a traffic ticket.

Kennedy said the North Carolina ban on social media use is unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens.

With one broad stroke, Kennedy said, North Carolinas law bars registered sex offenders from accessing news websites, checking help wanted ads, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.

While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace, Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy said his opinion should not be interpreted to bar states from enacting more specific laws, such as laws banning sex offenders from contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor.

Justice Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. concurred in the judgment in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case.

Alito said he agreed the law violated the free speech clause because of its extraordinary breadth. But Alito said he couldnt join the majority opinion because of its undisciplined dicta. The court is unable to resist musings that seem to equate the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks.

The majoritys language could leave the states largely powerless to restrict even the most dangerous sexual predators from visiting any internet sites, including, for example, teenage dating sites and sites designed to permit minors to discuss personal problems with the peers, Alito wrote.

Updated at 10 a.m. with additional information

Read the original post:
Supreme Court strikes down law banning sex offenders from using social networking websites - ABA Journal

[co-author: Adi Kamdar - Summer Associate]

The internet has become so essential to American public discourse that saying so is almost trite now. Members of Congress regularly use social media to engage with constituents. The President has turned Twitter into one of his primary modes of communication. It was only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court got its turn to sing the praises of social media.

In Packingham v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina criminal law that made it a felony for registered sex offenders to access social networking and other websites. In doing so, however, the Court took a stepperhaps a bigger step than some intendedtoward guaranteeing a constitutional right under the First Amendment to access the internet.

Packingham involved a 2008 North Carolina statute that made it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a commercial social networking website that is known to allow minors. The law defined a commercial social networking website with four requirements: (1) the operator of the website had to earn revenue through fees or advertisements; (2) the website had to allow for social introductions between people; (3) the website must allow users to create widely available personal profiles or pages; and (4) the site must give users a mechanism of communicating with each other, such as through a chat room or message board. Though the law carved out a few exceptions, it created a broad enough stick that the state of North Carolina had already prosecuted over a thousand people for violating it.

Nearly a decade after Packingham was convicted for a sex crime and registered as a sex offender, he posted on Facebook about how excited he was to have gotten a traffic ticket dismissed. A member of the local law enforcement noticed the post, and the state charged Packingham with violating the North Carolina law without alleging he had contacted a minor or committed any other illicit acts on the internet. The trial court denied Packinghams First Amendment challenge to the statute, and he was ultimately convicted for violating the statute. North Carolinas intermediate Court of Appeals agreed with Packingham and struck down the statute. But the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, finding the law to be carefully tailored to avoid violating the freedom of speech.

In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court on June 19 reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court and struck down the North Carolina law as unconstitutional.

Writing for five justices, Justice Anthony Kennedy kicked off his opinion with an analogy. Within First Amendment law, there is a basic rule that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of speech. And what is the equivalent forum of today? The answer is clear, Justice Kennedy put forward: It is cyberspace. . . . and social media in particular.

The majority spent a good portion of its opinion highlighting the centrality of the internet to First Amendment activities and modern life. It noted that websites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter collectively have billions of users, each of whom engages in multiple First Amendment-protected activities: debating religion and politics, sharing photographs, advertising and finding jobs, and reaching out to elected officials. Justice Kennedy went on to describe the Cyber Age as a revolution of historic proportions, acknowledging what lawyers working in this field have taken to heart: courts must be conscious that what they say today might be obsolete tomorrow.

The majority held that the North Carolina statute impermissibly burdened more speech than necessary in order to further its purposethe protection of children against recidivist sexual predators. Even though the Packingham majority acknowledged that North Carolinas goal was extremely important, it also found that the laws prohibitions were unprecedented in scope and thus could not stand. Social media sites allow for the communication of ideas and knowledge; they are the modern public square. Cutting individuals off from these important spaces prevents them from exercising their First Amendment rights. Furthermore, convicted criminals might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.

Writing for three members of the Court, Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the conclusion that the North Carolina law was overbroad and thus unconstitutional, but was hesitant to support the majoritys undisciplined . . . musings that seem to equate the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks. After all, Justice Alitos concurrence notes, there are clear distinctions between parks and cyberspace: from differences in the ability for parents to monitor their children, to differences in the amount of anonymity each space offers. And Justice Alito expressed concern that some may read the majoritys broad language as a prohibition on any and all attempts to pass laws addressing child sexual exploitation online or other efforts to regulate access to the internet.

At root, Justice Alitos concurrence took issue with the improper tailoring of the North Carolina law. Its vague language would prevent registered sex offenders from accessing, for example, Amazon, The Washington Post or WebMD. By categorically blocking access to these sites, the North Carolina law goes well beyond its intended means and runs afoul of the First Amendment.

The Courts Packingham decision is one of the first cases to seriously hint at the idea that access to online forums of expression is a protected right. Heavily relying on an amicus brief by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Justice Kennedys opinion highlights the importance of the internet as a marketplace of ideas, and its central role in promoting associational rights of persons in a free society. The Packingham decision casts serious doubt on the constitutionality of state and federal statutes, regulations and interpretations, which may impose broad limitations on access to the internet, particularly where the restriction is based on a persons continuing status or in the absence of an adjudication. Packingham may ultimately prove to be a powerful doctrinal weapon that internet-based companies can wield against laws and regulations that limit access to their services.

An important question that Packingham leaves unanswered, however, is what level of constitutional scrutiny applies to content-neutral regulations affecting access to the modern internet. All eight justices agreed that the North Carolina statute, given its overbreadth, would fail under any level of scrutiny under First Amendment jurisprudence. But the majoritys opinion gives little guidance for lawmakers that want to take steps to deter online predation on what type of statute would withstand a First Amendment challenge.

Read the original:
Supreme Court Declares First Amendment Interest in Access to Social Networks - JD Supra (press release)

Peek at this

Social networking is here to stay. There seems to be a constant competition between Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter for the top spot in the socializing game. However, these are not the only social networking sites.

In fact, many of the smaller platforms are gaining in popularity due to the lack of ads, more minimalistic design, and user preference for something new and different. One of the newest kids on the social networking block, is Peek.

Peek is a little bit like Periscope. Its a new iOS app that live-streaming with friends and family. Peek allows you to go live from where you are, and stalk places.

Its like a hyperlocal version of Periscope, but a bit more private. You can only go live from exactly where you are. Unlike Instagram, you cannot tag yourself at a specific location to increase your visibility and reach.

You have no followers, no friend requests, and no likes.

All people will see is the content of your live stream, with the location underneath. Its a stripped-down, bare-bones, minimalistic, version of Periscope and people are raving about the simplicity and the content.

Content without pressure for likes, followers, and fans.

Peek gives you the ability to peek at different locations, places, cultures, and venues, from your home.

There really isnt a catch. Peek is completely free but it does come with a few rules. Peek reserves the right to block racists, homophobics, xenophobics, sexists, and extremist views, but they are cool with nudity.

You may get flagged for it by other users, but they dont strictly prohibit nudity.

After downloading the app, you will be asked to login with your Facebook credentials and turn on location settings (so the app knows you are where you say you are, geographically). Once youre logged in with Facebook, youll be able to see everyone who has gone live recently and youll have the ability to go live as well.

If you click on your profile, at the top right of the screen, youll be able to see how many people have stalked you (watched your video).

This is helpful for checking out places like airports, concert venues, and other popular locations like restaurants you may not be familiar with, before you check them out for yourself.

This also gives techies and business people the ability to check out venues, get virtual walk-throughs on setups (depending on the content of other Peek users) and live stream content from conference centers and meetings for themselves.

Peek gives you the ability to see a variety of live-streaming locations and people, without the pressure of collecting followers.

Also, Peek allows you to delete a video youve posted in case you change your mind about your video (although if anyone was watching the live-feed they will have seen every minute of your content, so please keep that in mind).

As buzzworthy as Peek is right now, will it last, or will it go the way of Peach, Ello, and Blab? Maybe Peek will have staying power given their no rules, no-cost platform.

Peach was founded by Dom Hofmann, one of the co-founders of Vine (which was later acquired by Twitter), so it was no novice to the social media game, and yet it couldnt manage to make a big splash.

The same can be said of Ello.

Ello was intended to be an ad-free version, reminiscent of Facebook, but it still wasnt able to garner enough followers to make it a big name in social networking. Blab, on the other hand, had a very Periscope-y like feel to it.

But again couldnt make the leap into the big time.

Peek certainly has gained a great deal of excitement and attention from the tech community, and has the possibility to become a fan-favorite platform. What do you think, will Peek be the next big thing, or will it fizzle out like the previous live video social networking platforms?

Read more from the original source:
A Peek into the next live video social networking platform - The American Genius

June 21, 2017 About 2.8 billion people are estimated to use social media worldwide. Credit: Indiana University

A study led by computer scientists at Indiana University has found that people with the most connections on social media are also happier. This may cause most social media users to not only regard themselves as less popular than their friends but also less happy.

The recently published study is essentially the first to provide scientific evidence for the feeling many people experience when they log into services like Facebook, Twitter or Instagram: that everyone else looks like they're having more fun.

For the purposes of this study, which used publicly available data from Twitter, reciprocal followers were defined as "friends" and users with the most connections were defined as "popular."

"This analysis contributes to a growing body of evidence that social media may be harmful to users who 'overindulge' in these services since it's nearly impossible to escape negative comparisons to their friends' popularity and happiness," said lead author Johan Bollen, associate professor in the IU School of Informatics and Computing, who advises people to carefully monitor and limit use of these services.

"Given the magnitude of social media adoption across the globe, understanding the connection between social media use and happiness may well shed light on issues that affect the well-being of billions of people," he added.

The study builds upon a phenomenon known as the Friendship Paradox, which finds that most people on a social network have fewer connections on average than their friends, since the most popular users intersect with a higher-than-average number of social circles. The IU-led study is the first to reveal that these more popular users are also happier on average, inflating the overall happiness level of a user's social circlean effect the researchers dubbed the "Happiness Paradox."

"As far as we're aware, it's never been previously shown that social media users are not only less popular than their friends on average but also less happy," Bollen said. "This study suggests that happiness is correlated with popularity, and also that the majority of people on social networks aren't as happy as their friends due to this correlation between friendship and popularity."

To conduct the analysis, Bollen and colleagues randomly selected 4.8 million Twitter users, then analyzed the group for people who followed one another on the network, creating a social network of about 102,000 users with 2.3 million connections.

The team then narrowed their focus to individuals with 15 or more "friends" on the network, after which they analyzed the sentiment of these users' tweets, a common method in computer science and marketing to assess whether digital postings are generally positive or negative in tone. This created a group of 39,110 Twitter users. Users with higher positive sentiment were defined as "happy."

A statistical analysis of that final group found with high confidence that 94.3 percent of these users had fewer friends on average than their friends. Significantly, it also found that 58.5 percent of these users weren't as happy as their friends on average.

"In other words, a majority of users may feel that they're less popular than their friends on average," Bollen said. "They may also have the impression that they're less happy than their friends on average."

The study also found that social media users tend to fall into two groups: happier users with happier friends and unhappier users with unhappier friends. Surprisingly, the unhappier users were still likely to be less happy than their unhappy friends, suggesting they're more strongly affected by their friends' unhappiness.

"Overall, this study finds social media users may experience higher levels of social dissatisfaction and unhappiness due to negative comparison between their and their friends' happiness and popularity," Bollen said. "Happy social media users may think their friends are more popular and slightly happier than they areand unhappy social media users will likely have unhappy friends who still seem happier and more popular than they are on average."

The paper, titled "The happiness paradox: your friends are happier than you," appears in the European Physical Journal Data Science. Additional authors are Guangchen Ruan, doctoral researcher at IU; Bruno Gonalves of New York University; and Ingrid van de Leemput of Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

Explore further: Your friends have more friends than you do

More information: Johan Bollen et al, The happiness paradox: your friends are happier than you, EPJ Data Science (2017). DOI: 10.1140/epjds/s13688-017-0100-1

No matter how smart and funny you think you are, those you follow on Twitter really do have a larger following than you. And the same holds true for Facebook. But there is no reason to feel badly about any of this, according ...

The 'fear of missing out' (FOMO) phenomenon a feeling that friends and connections are leading more interesting lives is having a negative impact on the psychological wellbeing of social media users, a new study suggests.

A trio of researchers at the University of Southern California has uncovered a social-network illusion that might explain why some things become popular in cyberspace while others do not. Kristina Lerman, Xiaoran Yan and ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- When friends meet, hearts warm, according to the old proverb and new research from The University of Nottingham backs this up.

Contrary to popular opinion, social network users actually do have real lives. According to a poll published on Thursday by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project, Facebook users are more trusting, have ...

Always envious? Got a non-existent social life and struggle to concentrate? All this might be down to Facebook if you believe a study showing those who go a week without using the social network feel happier than others.

At job interviews, relax and be yourself - if you're good, being yourself may be the best way to secure a job offer, according to a new study involving UCL researchers.

India's population is expected to surpass China's in about seven years and Nigeria is projected to overtake the United States and become the third most populous country in the world shortly before 2050, a U.N. report said ...

"It's like a snake on the outside, but a fish on the inside."

When it comes to selfies, appearance is (almost) everything.

A study led by computer scientists at Indiana University has found that people with the most connections on social media are also happier. This may cause most social media users to not only regard themselves as less popular ...

New research finds that perception of absolute pitch in music is far more common that previously thought, challenging conventional wisdom that the ability to detect perfect pitch is rare.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Read more:
Analysis says social networking services may foster users' negative ... - Phys.Org

The Supreme Court ruled Monday a North Carolina law banning sex offenders from using social networking websites is unconstitutional.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the high court's opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina that decided the North Carolina law "impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment."

"By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge," Kennedy wrote. "These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard."

"In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the use from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. ... Even convicted criminals and in some instances especially convicted criminals might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives."

The high court's decision served as a victory for Lester Packingham, who was convicted of taking "indecent liberties" with a minor and later posted messages on Facebook praising God for helping him avoid a traffic ticket. Packingham was subsequently arrested for violating the law the Supreme Court shot down on Monday.

While Kennedy's opinion for the Supreme Court was met with no dissent, the high court's conservative bloc authored a concurring opinion sharply critical of Kennedy's reasoning. Justice Samuel Alito penned the stinging concurring opinion, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the consideration of the case.

Alito wrote he agreed with Kennedy's opinion for the high court because of the North Carolina law's "extraordinary breadth," but Alito refused to join Kennedy's opinion because of its "undisciplined dicta."

"The Court is unable to resist musings that seem to equate the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks," Alito wrote in the concurring opinion. "And this language is bound to be interpreted by some to mean that the States are largely powerless to restrict even the most dangerous sexual predators from visiting any internet sites, including, for example, teenage dating sites and sites designed to permit minors to discuss personal problems with their peers. I am troubled by the implications of the Court's unnecessary rhetoric."

Alito's concurring opinion continues to blast Kennedy's decision for its "loose rhetoric" and wrote the Supreme Court ought to be "more attentive" to how its language regarding the differences between cybserpace and the physical world.

"The Court is correct that we should be cautious in applying our free speech precedents to the internet," Alito wrote. "It is regrettable that the Court has not heeded its own admonition of caution."

Read the original:
Supreme Court rules NC law banning sex offenders from social networking sites unconstitutional - Washington Examiner