Louisiana Rev. Stats. § 14:91.5. forbids “intentional use of a social networking web site by an individual who’s required to register as a intercourse offender” who had been convicted of intercourse crimes in opposition to minors or of video voyeurism. The statute defines social community web site, and excludes:
(i) An Web web site that gives solely one of many following companies: photo-sharing, email correspondence, or on the spot messaging.
(ii) An Web web site the first function of which is the facilitation of business transactions involving items or companies between its members or guests.
(iii) An Web web site the first function of which is the dissemination of reports.
(iv) An Web web site of a governmental entity….
Yesterday’s Louisiana Court docket of Attraction determination in State v. McMahon (written by Choose Jeff Cox and joined by Chief Choose D. Milton Moore III and Choose Frances Jones Pitman) reasoned that the Louisiana statute differed from the same North Carolina statute struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court docket in Packingham v. N.C., for 2 causes:
[1.] By tailoring the statute, the Louisiana legislature has focused these offenders who “usually pose a excessive threat of participating in … crimes in opposition to victims who’re minors even after being launched from incarceration” which is “of paramount governmental curiosity.” …
[2.] Louisiana has two extra exclusions to the definition of social networking web site: “An Web web site the first function of which is the dissemination of reports”; and “An Web web site of a governmental entity.” The North Carolina statute prevented entry to social networking web sites. The Louisiana statute is distinguishable from the North Carolina statute as a result of it doesn’t forestall entry to social networking web sites, it solely prevents use of the web sites. “Use” is outlined within the Louisiana statute as “to create a profile on a social networking web site or to contact or try and contact different customers of the social networking web site.”
These distinctions between the 2 statutes converse on to the considerations of the Supreme Court docket that offenders wouldn’t have entry to sources for present occasions, checking employment adverts, and “exploring the huge realms of human thought and data.” …
Congratulations to Assistant D.A. Justin A. Wooley, who represented the state.