A California Court Finds Social Media Posts Aren’t a First Amendment Right

Julia Tim/Shutterstock.com

Featured eBooks

Digital First
Cloud Smarter
Cybersecurity & the Road Ahead

Probation's limits could include social media too.

Social media has created a slew of new issues in the courts and forced judges to ponder the legal import of postmodern concepts like Facebook friends and Instagram followers.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Packingham v. North Carolina that social media platforms are the new “public square,” and access to them is protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there are no limitations on how social media can be used when an ex-convict is on probation. For example, a California state appeals court just found in AA v. The People (pdf) that a “narrowly tailored” limit on social media use for a juvenile on probation—in this case for a felony offense—was legal for rehabilitation purposes and to protect a crime victim. (It is common for adults and juveniles serving probation for a felony offense to have many limitations imposed on their conduct and communications as part of the terms of conditional release.)

Social media has created a slew of new issues in the courts and forced judges to ponder the legal import of postmodern concepts like Facebook friends and Instagram followers.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Packingham v. North Carolina that social media platforms are the new “public square,” and access to them is protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there are no limitations on how social media can be used when an ex-convict is on probation. For example, a California state appeals court just found in AA v. The People (pdf) that a “narrowly tailored” limit on social media use for a juvenile on probation—in this case for a felony offense—was legal for rehabilitation purposes and to protect a crime victim. (It is common for adults and juveniles serving probation for a felony offense to have many limitations imposed on their conduct and communications as part of the terms of conditional release.)

The appeals court couldn’t have agreed with AA less, stressing the lowly position of juveniles in the criminal justice system. The opinion summarized the case as follows:

One of the goals of the juvenile law is reformation and rehabilitation of the minor’s attitude so that he respects the rights of others. Here, appellant seems to think that his felonious conduct is a springboard for braggadocio on the internet. Appellant has First Amendment freedom of speech rights. But the juvenile court may curtail such rights in an appropriate case by a narrowly tailored condition of probation. This is an appropriate case.

Basically, it’s true that AA has the right to speak freely. But his freedom is legally curtailed by probation conditions designed to rehabilitate him and protect the victim. The court noted that his social media posts could endanger the victim in this case and that there were plenty of other ways AA could communicate, including email, phone, in person, and via written correspondence.

To the extent that AA’s case seems to contradict the conclusions about free speech and social media in Packinghamit’s notable that the Supreme Court case involved a North Carolina law that made it a felony for sex offenders to have any social media presence at all, indefinitely. In this juvenile case, however, AA was only barred from posting about his offense and only for the duration of his probation.

AA also argued that his trial court attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the social media prohibition condition when it was initially imposed. This claim was dismissed with barely any discussion. The court said objecting would have been “an exercise in futility” anyway, so counsel couldn’t be considered deficient.