See North Carolina law makes it a felony for a registered sex offender “to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages.” N. : The North Carolina statute impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment. Today, one of the most important places to exchange views is cyberspace, particularly social media, which offers “relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds,” , 521 U. 844, to users engaged in a wide array of protected First Amendment activity on any number of diverse topics. First, while the Court need not decide the statute’s precise scope, it is enough to assume that the law applies to commonplace social networking sites like Facebook, Linked In, and Twitter. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. A “commercial social networking Web site” is defined as a website that meets four criteria. This case is one of the first this Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet. Second, this opinion should not be interpreted as barring a State from enacting more specific laws than the one at issue. Specific laws of that type must be the State’s first resort to ward off the serious harm that sexual crimes inflict. The trial court denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the law violated the First Amendment. At no point during trial or sentencing did the State allege that petitioner contacted a minor—or committed any other illicit act—on the Internet. The nature of a revolution in thought can be that, in its early stages, even its participants may be unaware of it. Hawke, Benjamin Rush: Revolutionary Gadfly 341 (1971) (quoting Rush as observing: “ ‘The American war is over; but this is far from being the case with the American revolution.MOUNT KISCO - A property that helped birth the atomic bomb — part of World War II's secret Manhattan Project — is fueling a lawsuit over whether its current owner got duped into buying it by an ex-business partner who allegedly hid its history of radioactive contamination. Six of the defendants are accused of spreading or worsening contamination on 103 and 105 Kisco Ave., during the course of the site's history, which began when a refinery there produced materials that were supplied for bomb development.
If Customer does not meet all of these requirements, Customer must not access or use the Website.
Wrote 2500 words, until interrupted by a visit from Allen Ginsberg, who came at four o’clock in the morning to tell me that he is going mad, but once and if cured he will communicate with other human beings as no one ever has—completely, sweetly, naturally.
He described his terror and seemed on the verge of throwing a fit in my house.
Burroughs, and in his journals he frequently criticized the two writers for their cynicism and lack of patriotism. It is the sum of myself, as far as the written word can go, and my opinion of it is like my opinion of myself!
Kerouac wrote twelve more novels, but he never again received the level of acclaim he achieved with “On the Road.” He died of alcohol-related causes, in 1969, in a hospital in St. Kerouac’s journals—which number more than two hundred volumes—were kept in a vault in Lowell, Massachusetts, and, under instructions from his widow, were not to be released until her death. Today, read my novel [“The Town and the City”] in its entirety. —gleeful and affectionate one day, black with disgust the next.
But Carozza, whom the suit alleges in his 32 years owning the lumber store oversaw removal and disposal of radioactive soil, "hid the contamination at every turn."The suit claims Carozza, of Pound Ridge, concealed government agencies' past investigations and reports, and "intercepted investigators in 20," to make it easier to offload the property.
The suit seeks more than .2 million in all from the various defendants for recovery of costs, damages and lawyer's fees.
According to sources cited to the Court, the State has prosecuted over 1,000 people for violating this law, including petitioner, who was indicted after posting a statement on his personal Facebook profile about a positive experience in traffic court. Petitioner was ultimately convicted and given a suspended prison sentence. See Brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation, at 870 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Internet’s forces and directions are so new, so protean, and so far reaching that courts must be conscious that what they say today may be obsolete tomorrow. (b) This background informs the analysis of the statute at issue. Like other inventions heralded as advances in human progress, the Internet and social media will be exploited by the criminal mind. Second, the Court assumes that the First Amendment permits a State to enact specific, narrowly-tailored laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor. 15–1194 _________________ LESTER GERARD PACKINGHAM, PETITIONER delivered the opinion of the Court. First, it “[i]s operated by a person who derives revenue from membership fees, advertising, or other sources related to the operation of the Web site.” §14–202.5(b). At the time, a member of the Durham Police Department was investigating registered sex offenders who were thought to be violating §14–202.5. As a result, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium. There is also no doubt that, as this Court has recognized, “[t]he sexual abuse of a child is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people.” The government, of course, need not simply stand by and allow these evils to occur. It is necessary to make two assumptions to resolve this case. The Court need not decide the precise scope of the statute. Specific criminal acts are not protected speech even if speech is the means for their commission. Though the issue is not before the Court, it can be assumed that the First Amendment permits a State to enact specific, narrowly tailored laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor. (Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.) Even with these assumptions about the scope of the law and the State’s interest, the statute here enacts a prohibition unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens.
When he calmed down I read him parts of my novel and he leeringly announced that it was “greater than Melville, in a sense—the great American novel.” I did not believe a word he said.