Communicating with or viewing the profile of a minor. He violated section 2. 5 by speaking. His friends and family about his experience in traffic court. If today he would to view or respond to any of the thousands of twitter messages about his case in this court that would be a felony. Second, the lot does not operate in some sleepy First Amendment corner. It operates in freespeech on the platforms of which America Today are most likely to communicate, to organize for social change and to petition their government. Third, section is a criminal law and imposes punishment for protective First Amendment activity without any regard to individual culpability or lack of culpability. Of the state imposes restriction as a condition of payroll. Your honor, i think, they have much more authority to impose conditional parole and states do this all the time. They limit peoples First Amendment rights and if you had something that was is seen as this for life for anybody who committed a offense,. Justice ginsburg. The most fundamental right is taken away from fundamentals by some states prohibit excons from voting in some states and the federal government prohibit bearing arms and thats a constitutional right. Right, your honor. Both of those rights are different from the First Amendment. They are equally fundamental but they are different. In the case of a voting, North Carolina does not take away we draw the line at people have completed their payroll and period of supervised release but in richardson versus ramirez the court looks to the text and history of extradition and said section two of the 14th amendment there was an affirmative sanction for felony disenfranchisement and if you look at that same section which dealt with the people who were dealt in the civil war you didnt need to restore their First Amendment rights. With the Second Amendment, when someone is convicted of a crime in the immediately loose their Second Amendment right and they dont lose their First Amendment right. In the simon and schuster case this vindicated the right who is a serial killer who wanted to write from prison where he was serving a life sentence for murder about his experience. Make it difficult if you look at the text in history. We dont have history here. Concerning access to websites and all this sort of thing were dealing with here. I dont think thats a useful guide. I agree, your honor but when you look at we talk about history, the history is there isnt a tradition of taking away peoples First Amendment rights and when the court said First Amendment rights are inalienable meaning. Dont have a lot of history of having such sites or access where they can provide broad access to minors of a sort that is problematic with respect to this individual. I dont disagree with you and we know as with violent video games, as in any manner of new technology the court is confronted. Isnt a framing era or patient analog but there is no history when you talk about all of the things that the state historically has restricted they never said you lose your right to publish a newspaper because she been convicted back first, we try to translate this into terms that would be familiar at the time of the adoption of the First Amendment. Suppose the state enacted a law prohibiting anyone convicted of tapping children from visiting a Nursery School would that be a violation of the First Amendment . I dont think so. Obviously, at the framing of the First Amendment and apply to the states. I suppose it was in history. So, your honor a kindergartei dont think theres a First Amendment right to visit a kindergarten in that fundamental here. This law only applies in the places where everything that has happened is a First Amendment activity whether its receiving information and seeking association, petitioning s suppose the law said that someone who was sex offender could not communicate with a minor on social media. Would you agree to that would be constitutional . I think my first answer is it would be much less restrictive and that shows why this law is unconstitutional, right respect thats exactly what the prosecutor if you look at. Theres a concern here for the safety of children so im asking you. [inaudible] would it be constitutional . Notification with a minor. I think it probably would be. The difference is if you take the test, the narrow tailoring test which is fundamentally the score had said in toward a quantitative test and you say what percentage of what you suppress and gave the interest. When youre talking about communicating with minors or viewing the pages of minors that is going to the heartland of the protective interests of the state is asserting but here everything that they are suppressing, as he said, is indifferent as to whether its poor, speech, the petitioner was convicted for saying thank you, jesus god is good about a parking ticket to an audience even as narrowly tailored as Justice Ginsburgs example would be a crime for a convicted sex offender or someone who is convicted previously of committing a sex offense using the internet from contacting on the internet a person who is known by the person to be a minor without the consent of the parents of the minor. That would that would be a violation of the First Amendment i think i would be constitutional. Im sorry i wasnt clear about that. I would still say that there are narrow tailoring that im not here to say that particular hypothetical law and there one of the concerns with the loss that i thank you handled by narrowing it to a subset of people and this applies to everybody. And it applies in essentially a single basis on the theory that as a collective they have a higher rate of recidivism than people on average. This court case says its a problematic assumption and especially with a population like this that is so heterogeneous and is constantly being evaluated on an individualized basis and its not clear to me why you would take peoples First Amendment right away for life. Your best argument is that you is too broad, doesnt fail scrutiny at whatever level we adopt . What do you think this mike i know you say all of those back all of the above, your honor. This is not a case where the level of scrutiny will make a difference alaris Elizabeth Barrett browning to let me come they were. Yes, your honor. Suppose there were an apt, a program, in which officers can monitor your video and your cyber equipment and disclose if you are communicating with minors. Would that be a law that every convicted person has to consent to that app internet surveillance . That goes to the question of what you dont need to answer and i want to answer justice certifiers question first. What is the status of being in a registrant mean in terms of somebodys constitutional right i think that is clearly much less restrictive from a First Amendment perspective because then, again, people like mr. Buckingham and anyone who wants to do the things that are, simply protected is able to do it and its a effective detective and deterrent. From the First American amendment. The fourth member in question which is ordinarily once youre done with supervised release you have full First Amendment for the state, your honor. It does everything perfectly tailored except for the state has a sense of what you may be up to which is a concern but essentially they are able to deter people, detect people and the people who want to speak and exercise their core member rights. I think for goldberg what state is saying is it doesnt have the capacity to do that. It doesnt have the capacity to check message by message or click by click what a person is doing. In the absence of that, its some kind of prophylactic remedy is needed. Not unheard of in First Amendment law. If you think of the case like. [inaudible] which is the 50 feet within the polling places. Is a prophylactic rule. Why wouldnt they be appropriate here . Well, your honor, obviously, there are times when prophylactic roles are permissible under the First Amendment and mr. Packing him when he was convicted got a condition that said you shall not have any contact with the specific victim of this crime and that would otherwise apply to you or me that would be an abridgment of our freedom of speech. There is no general rule that this course has said repeatedly that you should be suspicious of prophylactic roles or ordinarily you want to allow people to speak but even as we talk about rules that are focused on teenagers on the internet and having specific content with them as our prophylactic roles. The question is can you do it at the first step. What was your answer, the statute prohibits convicted sex offenders from pain or spending more than five minutes at 800 playground. Is that constitutional . That constitutional effect instead of what most of the brief do is interpret this as probably as possible. What about trying to interpret it as narrowly as possible . As narrowly as possible it seems to be a necessary condition. Is it a violator, cannot go to a site that facilitates the social introduction between two or more persons and these are children they are talking about, i guess, for two or more persons for the purposes of friendship meeting other person or Information Exchanges. So, we have to say or related Information Exchanges. Now we have a definition that sounds as if theyre talking about dating sites or it sounds as if theyre talking about related playgroup sites if you take in children and is it possible to read it that way and if you do read it that way, is it constitutional . A couple points. The answer to the playground you start with First Amendment right is being abridged and im not sure i see a First Amendment right being. I wanted to be get your answer and i think i have that. Im really interested in the narrow possibility of interpreting it narrowly as i said and on that basis it spatially constitutional but we could be applied unconstitutionally. Thats what i want your answer. This is a criminal case and it doesnt arise as a civil suit in District Court and this is first and foremost and has applied a challenge because the relief that we are seeking is to overturn. Youre not attacking the statue. Youre only attacking it applies to your client. In a criminal case, the court has the power to say and i think its appropriate in this case that the problem here is the problem for every application and as weve argued. Okay that brings you back to my question. Im treating it as an applied challenge. I dont want to repeat the question. I want to get your answer. The answer is, your honor, that narrow construction, im not sure that its possible in the narrow construction isnt going to be, in this case, make any difference because as i understand your hypothetical statute or construction that is not mr. Packing and did not valley of the law. All i am doing is reading one word before Information Exchange and the word im reading is related Information Exchange. As interpreted, that clause to which are much more familiar with and i am seems to be talking about dating sites or the lower age level in. But the social interaction between purposes of friendship meeting other persons or related Information Exchanges. Ive now got a social dating or equivalent site. I think i can say that. If i say that, is it constitutional effort trying to get your answer to. If it were limited to dating sites i would assume that it is constitutional. I dont think the state has ever said that this is about dating sites. They say the category practitioner because of your it involves boasting about getting off the traffic right, that is my first and foremost point that mr. Buckingham was not on a dating site my answer to this would be they have not provided that way here and given the way theyve applied it here they cant do that and ill never have 40 other cases. I dont think theyve ever applied in the main focus of dating sites tend to have age restrictions that apply only to adults and so its their position that those are excluded from the states position and you can hear from them is that they never proposed that as a construction because they want to go after the sites the classic social networking sites. The interpretation of Justice Breyer and the language that Justice Breyer is referring to and other language it in the statute could for the purpose of avoiding First Amendment problems be limited to core social Network Sites including facebook and things like facebook, google plus, that sort of thing. It excludes a lot of the other sites that the electronic sites here says are included like the New York Times and Betty Crocker and things like that. We be limited just to social networking sites. Would you agree that they could be using constitutional avoidance and could be narrowed to lease those . Are busy, your honor that im not sure that it cant but im very important for the constitutional question that that is relevant and it goes back to what how do we win this case what is the biggest problem with the statute and the biggest problem to put in context. It is important for purposes of an applied challenge because what your client use with facebook right . Yes. Even if it was limited to those back our position for the very reason we talked about which was that just like the law in the jews for jesus airport case from los angeles and no First Amendment activity in this place and this is a law that says no First Amendment activity and says indiscriminate one of my problems with all of the sites today is that none of them are purely or very few are purely anything anymore. Take Something Like lincoln which many many people in our Society Today are looking for jobs they are but High School Students are permitted to look for jobs and post their data personal data on that type. Is that traditional social media or not. I think the state says it is because it meets the definition and i want to get back to justice. Thats my point which is facebook, many people, many businesses are using it for commercial advertisement. Thats very true. There was another defendant was prosecuted along side mr. Packing him and he lost his job because his employer said is impossible for you to do your job if you cant get on the sites. All of these questions indicate what justice so the fire was asked earlier and others interested you. What is the category that we use if we will for you we say the statute is a violation of the First Amendment because what are the basic rules for the or choices that you offer to say why this is unconstitutional. Is not narrowly tailored and to stop there and were overbroad which is the flipside and sometimes its a confusing word because it has thirdparty standing to mention an airport case it was used to say this goes way too far because it prohibits lots of First Amendment speech and if you just take the narrow tailoring test and in frisbee and taxpayer or does this is the theory of this loss that restricts speech on the possibility that will lead to other harm and that inherently is not going to be a nearly taro law or you can look at it the way which we say how much is protected activity of the press and thats a really straightforward way. In our brief argues that there are multiple prong and if you go through every prong and analysis this is a stark case in terms of alternative channel and this forecloses some of the most important channels of munication in our society so you can say that too. What the court said in the call and was once if its not narrowly tailored that its unconstitutional and i dont ses incumbent upon you to come up with a narrow tailored alternative so if you wanted to the North Carolina legislative what is the most effective alternative. Well, your honor, it was not incumbent on the challenger to come up with the alternative but here it said the state has to show that it seriously considered. I thought you agreed with me earlier that North Carolina band indicating with a minor by social media smacked right. In response to that is how do you know that its a minor or how is i assume the minors can put on that they dont have to have their age and email and they dont have to communicate in the text in the message but on the site. I think the response would not be that its not terribly effective. Two answers to that. First of all, if you look at page 11 of the blue brief where there is a Closing Argument by the da in this case, the eight lays out and this is not a case where weve come up with some exotic theory about how this law and the da says to the jury that in order to convict you might not like this law and you might prefer a law that doesnt have specific contact on this but with minor children or a law that says that might entrap teenagers in this lot of data. It doesnt. Even if you dont agree with that, if you dont like it, the law says they cant access. It doesnt say it because it wouldnt work. He doesnt say that the it would be fine and heres a alternative that you might like and t