[1] In 2010, Lester Gerard Packingham, a registered sex offender, posted on Facebook under a pseudonym to comment favorably on a recent traffic court experience.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that social media—defined broadly to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post, and WebMD—is a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech.

[6] In 2002, Lester Gerard Packingham was convicted of taking "indecent liberties with a child", a felony that required him to register as a sex offender.

The state had a vested interest in “forestalling the illicit lurking and contact of minors” by registered sex offenders and potential future victims, and sustained Packingham's conviction.

The North Carolina Supreme Court filed a brief supporting its prior decision, urging the importance of protecting minors in the Internet age from being stalked online.

[14] North Carolina’s senior deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, argued for the state, and claimed that communication through social media sites is a “crucial channel”.

[14] Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Montgomery to provide evidence as to the claim that by giving Packingham Internet privileges, he would commit another crime.

He continued that "By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge."

While Alito agreed that the law at issue violated the First Amendment, he noted that there are reasonable scenarios for which legal bans for sex offenders can be placed, such as for sites targeted at teenagers.

[18] Bhagwat speculated that this might change in the future, as "recent calls to regulate 'fake news' and otherwise impose filtering obligations on search engine and social media companies will inevitably raise important and difficult First Amendment issues".

[20] For example, in a case called United States v. Rock (2017), a defendant who pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography cited Packingham in an appeal of one of the conditions of his supervised release, which prevented him from possessing or using a computer.

[23] Burnette-McGrath described this as a "low standard" that may inspire states to "implement new laws under the guise of substantial government interest or of being narrowly tailored" at the detriment of free speech on the Internet.