Media Law Discourse
- Jessica Thompson
- Dec 16, 2022
- 2 min read
This was written as a brief assignment for a media law class. The goal for this piece was to communicate the importance of law in communications issues. This piece deals with a specific case, Packingham v. North Carolina, and its importance.

The 2017 Packingham v. North Carolina case was a complex case that dealt with registered sex offenders using social media platforms. In 2010, a registered sex offender by the name of Lester Gerard Packingham posted on Facebook, a privately owned and public platform, under a pseudonym. The post was seemingly harmless, but a deeper concern regarding First Amendment rights to free speech was brought under revision. Originally, Packingham was convicted by the North Carolina Supreme Court as minors can create accounts on this platform and run the risk of connecting with registered sex offenders. In 2017, the United States Supreme Court reversed the original decision by a unanimous vote.
The reversal of the original court’s decision must be considered as it reflects the importance of First Amendment rights. The First Amendment states that the individual has the right to speak up and share his or her opinion and thoughts. This is essential to the development of good ideas through the marketplace of ideas. In this “marketplace”, bad ideas will be lost and good ideas will remain strong. This is essential to the growth and development of the nation as well as the individual autonomy and agency to be exercised. The right to free expression also allows citizens to monitor the government’s use of power. These rights, along with a few others that were not mentioned above, are crucial and are generally only restricted during times of war or when clear and present danger is imminent. As such, the Packingham case brings about an important perspective on such rights.
The reversal of the original decision can be seen in both a positive and negative light when considering free speech and the safety of minors. In the positive sphere, we say protection of free speech and expression. As aforementioned, these rights are crucial to both the development of a legal system and the way citizens conduct themselves within that system. Without such guidelines and nearly guaranteed protections, the governmental body runs the risk of throwing the public into danger and distress. From a First Amendment standpoint, the reversal shows the government is willing to protect free speech.
However, when we look at the case from a safety standpoint, the reversal can be seen as something slightly more negative. It is justified in the North Carolina supreme court that the decision to convict Packingham was meant to protect minors and those that could be sexually assaulted. It does not take into account the individual’s, in this case Packingham’s, right to express himself. It also did not consider the lack of imminent threat or danger. Although the presence of registered sex offenders on social media platforms undoubtedly poses a lurking threat to others using such sites, the government cannot infringe on personal rights to speech and expression. As such, other methods of protection need to be considered. The United States Supreme Court was then justified in its reversal of the original decision as a measure to protect the rights to free speech that are outlined in the Constitution.
Comments