I realized that I had the date wrong for Smith after posting this. I must be thinking of 1994 because that’s when the registry started.

I read the entire case again and realized I had my cases mixed up. Thank you for the correction. After reading Justice Roberts comments in the Smith case, I feel that he may rule in our favor on this one and possible future cases now.

During Smith, the registry was much less intrusive than it is now. It also appears that decision relied heavily on the supposed high recidivism rate. It also speculated as to effectiveness of the law without any prior evidence. We now have the evidence of the ineffectiveness of the registry which has already started swaying lower courts in our favor.

I am highly confident about the outcome of this case, and I’m a little excited about the possible precedent it could set.

Smith v. Doe was decided in 2003. McKune v. Lile (frightening and high language) was decided in 2002. In 1994, many states still had no publicized registry.

Yes, CJ John Roberts was lead counsel for Alaska in the 2003 Smith v. Doe case, but he did not argue McKune. He is not the direct culprit of the “frightening and high” language. In addition to that, since he’s probably a fairly well educated individual, I suspect he is capable of following where the newer statistical data points. We should never assume that ANY justice is incapable of recognizing a solid factual basis for reconsidering a former application of law. Justices aren’t mercurial creatures, but they are pliable.

That’s a good point! I was just reading an article about the current nominee being a law clerk for Kennedy back in the day. I didn’t connect that he was probably his clerk in 1994 when Smith v. Doe was decided and the erroneous “frightening and high” statement was brought up. I’m researching to see if this is one he recommended for cert, but it’s hard to find that information.

Another interesting fact I just saw while researching the 1994 decision is that the attorney on behalf of the petitioners (Smith et al) was John G. Roberts, Jr. ESQ. Could this possibly be the same John Roberts that is currently the chief justice? If so, then we know we cannot count on his vote ever and he is the tool that brought up the “frightening and high” assertion. More research is needed to verify this though.

I just read the amicus brief that NARSOL filed and the entrepreneurial issue was brought up in the examples under John Doe #4, though I wish the search engine issue would have been added in. Still, it’s good to see that the amicus briefs on Packingham’s side are using facts and evidence while the state of North Carolina conveniently avoids it and omits information.

Note: Justice Ginsberg dissented in Smith v. Doe in 1994. If I’m not mistaken, she’s the only sitting judge that did. Kennedy believed the “frightening and high” back then, but now seems to be realizing that mistake and is likely now in our corner.

“For seven years after his conviction, Packingham had no further sex offenses — until he signed up for the Facebook account.” So they are saying him signing up for the facebook account was a sex offence or he did a sex offence after also not true.

News is not news anymore it is just another subliminal stab at RSOs

Excellent post!

One thing that keeps coming up is the supposed “high recidivism rate” SO’s pose. We need to stop courts and lawmakers from citing falsehoods to justify their agendas.

I’m hopeful that this case will start a national conversation. Hopefully, we will have a chance to get the real facts to the public.

I just read the defense brief that was publicly submitted and I am extremely impressed! Although the entrepreneurial issue I am bringing up was not discussed in that brief, the defense brought up many good points that may get the courts finally leaning in our direction. They chastised the state for it’s claim that SOs are more likely to recidivate. The state used the same DOJ study that we are all most likely familiar with. They only quoted the portion about SOs more likely to commit sex crimes versus other offenders while omitting the overall recidivism rate. The defense brief correctly. That quote is misguided and unnecessary, but oft quoted, as it’s similar to saying a thief is more likely to steal than other criminals. The defense correctly pointed out the recidivism rate, 5.3%, using that study along with multiple others. This will help correct the judiciary’s ill informed belief about SO recidivism rate which could have very positive implications for us as a whole.

I only had to read a few pages of the state’s brief, which banks on support for the “government’s interest”, to realize their argument is very thin. The defense brief tears this argument up pretty well in their whole brief. I think we have a really good chance of winning this one. The question is how the decision will be written and applied as precedent. I can’t wait to find out!

In light of the fact that the state’s primary arguing point defending N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-202.5 is the supposed protection of minors on social media, I would strenuously point out that this primary argument lacks sufficient weight and justification due, to a large extent, to the following:

A. Any and all sex offender registries and the codes/laws that constitute sex offender registration requirements can only affect those persons who are subject to such codes/laws.

B. The vast majority of sex-related offenses (convictions) are committed by those persons who are not in sex offender registries nor subject to sex offender-related codes/laws.

C. The recidivism rate (subsequent convictions related to offenses against minors) of those who were previously convicted of offenses related to minors is very low.

D. Therefore, sex offender registries, and also registration laws/requirements, do very little to prevent future sex-related offenses. This of course includes the North Carolina law prohibiting ex-sex offenders from using or accessing the bulk of social media websites.

The above can be used to argue the following:

A. The making of laws should consider if such proposed laws will substantially fulfill their purpose and if they will create greater evil(s) than they can potential solve.

B. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-202.5 does not substantially fulfill its purpose. It also creates greater evils than it can potential solve. This is due to the fact that:

1. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-202.5 does extremely little to prevent future sex-related offenses against minors as pertains to social media use.

2. Its implementation comes with a serious price tag to North Carolina’s tax payers while doing little to fulfill its intent and purpose of preventing harm to minors as pertains to social media use.

a. Such wasted money could be better spent on supporting the state’s youth in other effective and productive ways.

3. It creates a totally unnecessary burden on registered ex-sex offenders who are attempting to live as productive and law-abiding members of society in an attempt to meet society’s expectation of rehabilitation and integration.

a. The N.C. law and other similar laws make it nearly impossible for many ex-sex offenders to have any real hope of fulfilling such expectations and living productive, law-abiding lives. This lack of hope has serious practical, emotional and mental ramifications for former sex offenders, which of course also directly and negatively impacts society.

b. These negative consequences work counter to the very intent and purpose of sex offender laws in both North Carolina and in the other states.

The situations surrounding these 2 girls have been clearly USED to inhibit the rights of everyone since lawmakers had a field day with the entire registry scandal. I wonder how those girls would feel knowing other people have been murdered because of a law named after them? Or do lawmakers look the other way because the lives, hearts and souls of those on the registry apparently don’t mean anything anymore? I don’t see one single outcry for the people murdered because they were on the registry, and all the other government bullying is allowed and not even spoken of. The state has pounded one thing into my head with a sledgehammer, being on their registry, this life is now a prison, and the powers to be have done enough to me to make me hate life. They clearly want me dead, only thing is, killing is illegal, or I’m sure they’d tack that on as a punishment… and probably have the temerity to claim the death was regulatory.