WASHINGTON — With a nod to the importance of social media in American life, the Supreme Court signaled Monday that it could strike down a North Carolina law that bars convicted sex offenders from Facebook, Twitter, and other popular sites.
At least five justices, a majority of the court, suggested they’d rule for North Carolina resident Lester Packingham Jr.
His Facebook boast about beating a traffic ticket led to his conviction for violating a 2008 law aimed at keeping sex offenders off Internet sites children might use.
The state’s lawyer said the law deals with the virtual world in the same way states keep sex offenders out of playgrounds. Over 1,000 people have been prosecuted under the law, Packingham said in his court filing.
Justice Samuel Alito appeared to be more open to North Carolina’s argument. But several justices said the law was so broad that it could violate free-speech rights, even of people convicted of sex crimes.
Sites like Facebook and Twitter are so popular they ‘‘have become embedded in our culture,’’ Justice Elena Kagan said.
The 56-year-old Kagan, the youngest justice and seemingly most conversant on the subject, said the law could prevent people from looking at the Twitter feeds of President Trump and other elected officials.
Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced his concerns by reaching back to before the digital age to note that more communication takes place online than in the traditional ‘‘public square,’’ where the court has been skeptical of limits on speech.
Deputy North Carolina Attorney General Robert Montgomery acknowledged some digital avenues are cut off from people convicted under the law but said alternatives exist. ‘‘This is a part of the Internet, but it’s not the entire Internet that is being taken away from these offenders,’’ Montgomery said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among those who wondered if a narrower law that tried to prevent sex offenders from communicating with minors through social media might withstand court review.
A more constrained law might be constitutional, lawyer David Goldberg said on behalf of Packingham, but North Carolina’s version goes too far.
‘‘The law does not operate in some sleepy First Amendment quarter,’’ Goldberg said. Instead, it ‘‘forbids speech on the very platforms on which Americans today are most likely to communicate, to organize for social change, and to petition their government.’’
Louisiana is the only other state with a law similar to North Carolina’s.
Packingham, 36, pleaded guilty in 2002 to taking indecent liberties with a child. He had been indicted for the statutory rape of a 13-year-old.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to a Mexican immigrant facing deportation after he was convicted of having consensual sex with an underage girl. Juan Esquivel-Quintana, a lawful permanent resident, had sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend when he was 20 and 21. California law criminalizes having sex with anyone under 18 if the age difference is more than three years. Federal officials later moved to deport him, but Esquivel-Quintana says his conduct would have been legal under federal law and the laws of 43 other states.
At issue is what happens when immigration laws are unclear and whether courts should defer to immigration officials.
Several justices seemed reluctant to defer to the government when it comes to criminal enforcement.
