[JURIST] The US
Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments on Monday in
Packingham v. North Carolina and
Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions [SCOTUSBlog reports]. In
Packingham
[transcript, PDF] the court considered whether a law that bans the use
of social media for registered sex offenders is permissible under First
Amendment precedent. In the case at hand, petitioner, a registered sex
offender, was arrested for a Facebook post in which he celebrated the
dismissal of a traffic ticket. Petitioner argued that the North Carolina
law preventing the use of social media is "a stark abridgment of
Freedom of Speech." First he argues that it prohibits conduct unrelated
to the preventative purpose of the statute citing the fact that the
accused activity had no dealings with minors. Petitioner also argued
that in today's society, social media is a main platform for
communication that cannot be barred in its entirety under the First
Amendment. Petitioner also made the distinction between creating a
statute that prevents this conduct for life for all sex offenders versus
conditions of parole in specific circumstances, which are appropriate
under First Amendment considerations. Respondent in turn argued that the
ban of social media is simply the next step in today's society. For
years, states have banned sex offenders from places where children
congregate such as schools, playgrounds and parks. With the advancement
in social media, it is a necessary step for the state to also ensure sex
offenders do not partake in virtual places where children now spend
their time.
In
Esquivel-Quintana
[transcript, PDF] the court heard arguments on whether consensual
intercourse between a 21-year-old and a person who is almost 18
constitutes "sexual abuse of a minor," which is an aggravated felony.
Under the
Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) [INA index], such a conviction constitutes grounds for mandatory
removal. Petitioner in the case argued that a definition of sexual abuse
as is related to age has a general cutoff of 16 years old or younger.
Petitioner stated that while the statue itself did not prescribe an age
requirement, various state precedent as well as Congress's use of the
same language in another criminal statute make it clear that 16 is the
required age for sexual abuse. Respondent replied that as the definition
is vague that the Attorney General and the Board of Immigration
Appeals, who were given authority over administering and interpreting
the INA should be shown deference in their judgment. Furthermore,
Respondent argued that a multi-jurisdiction survey for the definition of
"sexual abuse" was inappropriate as compared to a general dictionary
definition for the interpretation of a minor as well as defining abuse
as a type of activity that regardless of consent, "contain[s] the
potential for harm or risk because of ... the relationship between the
parties involved."
No comments:
Post a Comment