Free Consultation 1-800-499-9902


Sex Offenders’ Freedom of Speech

Posted by Seth Chazin | Feb 27, 2017 | 0 Comments

The Fight for Sex Offenders' Freedom of Speech in North Carolina

The Supreme Court recently heard Packingham v. North Carolina. North Carolina bans registered sex offenders from accessing any social media sites that allow under-18-year-olds to post; these include Facebook, Twitter and more. The law isn't limited to people who are in prison or on probation, it also applies even to people who have finished serving their sentences. The law is also not limited to sex offenders who committed crimes against minors, but makes it a crime for any registered sex offender to either post to such a site or even read it.

The defendant in Packingham v. North Carolina, Lester Packingham, was convicted under this law for posting on Facebook that “God is good” after he obtained the dismissal of a traffic ticket. Lester had been convicted on two counts of statutory rape (in California see CHAPTER 1. Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse of Children, and Seduction .)  in 2002, and was ordered to register as a sex offender (see CHAPTER 5.5. Sex Offenders). Because of this criminal history, he was convicted based on this Facebook 'post'.

Many human rights organizations including the ACLU, the ACLU of North Carolina, EPIC, and the Cato Institute argue that North Carolina's law violates the First Amendment. The law is unconstitutionally overbroad because, under the definition of social media, it would prevent individuals on the registry from reading or commenting on a huge swathe of websites, including Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, the New York Times, and Wikipedia. The law, which in theory is supposed to protect minors from sex offenders, is unfair as it restricts the speech of individuals who were never convicted of a crime involving minors. It clearly restricts far more speech than necessary. It is thus “overbroad” and should be struck down as unconstitutional.

The Law Offices of Seth P. Chazin make every effort to protect our clients' rights.  The case of defendant Lester Packingham clearly reveals a serious violation of Mr. Packingham's constitutional rights, including his right to freedom of speech. Even though a person has been convicted of a crime, they should still enjoy the protection of our nation's constitution.

Information from the Supreme Court:


About the Author

Seth Chazin

Seth P. Chazin has aggressively defended clients in thousands of felony and misdemeanor cases for over 30 years. He has extensive experience representing criminal defendants in federal and state court, while handling both state and federal appeals as well.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment


“The death penalty is a lie, a misguided mistake born of anger and frustration. Capital punishment has become a perverse monument to inequality, to how some lives matter and others do not. It is a violent example of how we protect and value the rich and abandon and devalue the poor. The death penalty is a grim, disturbing shadow formed by the legacy of racial apartheid and bias against the poor that condemns the disfavored among us, but corrupts us all. It’s the perverse symbol elected officials use to strengthen their ‘tough on crime’ reputations and distract us from confronting the causes of violence. It is finally the enemy of grace, redemption and all of us who recognize that each person is more than their worse act.”
- Bryan Stevenson