California Court says social media posts are Not a first amendment right

In 2017, the United States Supreme Court weighed in on the issue of social media as free speech for criminals. The case of Packingham v. North Carolina, dealt with a North Carolina law that prohibited sex offenders from having any social media platforms/presence online. The court rules that social media is new "public space" and access to these platforms is protected by the first amendment. 

Last year, a California state appeals court delivered a seemingly contradictory verdict on a case some would say ignores precedent set by the Supreme Court. The case AA v. The People, dealt with a sixteen year old male who was arrested with a felony offense. The nature of the crime is crucial for the context of the story and therefore it will be disclosed. The boy was found guilty of assaulting someone severely enough that reconstructive surgery was required. While his original case was under consideration, he used a popular social media app to upload a photo of his subpoena. He captioned the photo, "New Netflix series coming. I'm a 16 year old felon." After a returning trip back to court for his case, he posted a video of himself dancing infant of the court house. HE was given a stern warning from the judge not to post on his social media platforms about the case, and cautioned him that his posts may be used as evidence against him. AA was sentenced probation and forced to take down any posts having to do with the case, the victim or the offense. AA felt that these restrictions hindered his ability to practice his freedoms under the first amendment, and the precedent of Packingham v. North Carolina. Because of the percieved injustices, AA and his family filed for the appellate court of California. The Californian appellate court responded with a statement that seemingly contradicts the previous case. 

The Californian court explained that one of the main goals of a juvenile facility is to rehabilitate and reform offenders in order to lower recidivism rates in the future. The court deemed that it the appellate court has the power to "curtail such rights in an appropriate case by a narrowly tailored condition of probation." 

This is significant for first amendment issues because this is one of the rare cases where a lower court will choose on the side that is not solved by precedent. It not only limited the defendants use of social media, but it also changes how he is able to speak freely on a format deemed public. The court decided that the concern with victim security and rehabilitation was more important than the free use of AA's social media account. 

Ephrant Livni - December 26, 2018

https://qz.com/1507443/a-california-court-finds-social-media-posts-arent-a-first-amendment-right/