Anonymous:
In Smith, SCOTUS said dissemination of “mostly public” information regarding RCs was civil and thus not punishment. Anything and everything above and beyond since then has been decided below SCOTUS (State courts, Federal District and Circuit courts), with mixed outcomes. IMO the constantly building caselaw is reaching critical mass and eventually one of these cases will land at SCOTUS and they will finally grant review. What happens after that, who knows? I would like to hope SCOTUS sees what a nasty, messy, sh-tstorm they’ve made and that the burdens spread far and wide beyond the RCs themselves to spouses, families, and children. I’m 100% confident there will be a plethora of amici who chime in with real recidivism data. Sadly for us, the wheels of justice turn very slowly.

Indeed.

Since 2003 Smith vs Doe this horse is of a completely different hue. In particular when it went world wide web.

They’ve dog piled on additional burdens above and beyond the “price club card” version.

The 6th circuit Does vs Snyder (denied cert) opinion explains this trend perfectly.

Everyone should read that 14 page opinion.

I’m in a SORNA state. It’s more rigorous than the probation I completed.

Yes. This is quoted from the SCOTUS opinion.

Detroit: Thank you for your post. I already suspected where your thoughts were on the case. I just felt it important to say something more than “they screwed up.” (I really dislike when someone points out a problem but offers no solution. Clearly one must have a possibility in mind or else there’d not be a problem found!) Helping others know how and where a case got screwed up or undersold can only be helpful to others’ increased understanding. I’m with you on it, brother! Again, thank you.

They really said/wrote this?? Case closed!! Done deal!!! We’re all free!!
. . .. speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” Reno, 521 U.S., at 870, 117 S.Ct. 2329.

Jacob:

Yes sir. “The devil is in the details.” However, the SCOTUS opinion not only addresses the law of prohibition, but further argues more broadly in part, such as:

“This background informs the analysis of the North Carolina statute at issue. Even making the assumption that the statute is content neutral and thus subject to intermediate scrutiny, the provision cannot stand. In order to survive intermediate scrutiny, a law must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S”.

Is collection of internet ID’s, email, screen names, etc. from EVERYONE narrowly tailored?

The opinion further states:

“First, given the broad wording of the North Carolina statute at issue, it might well bar access not only to commonplace social media websites but also to websites as varied as Amazon.com, Washingtonpost.com, and Webmd.com. ”

and:

” (the prohibition) 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. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” Reno, 521 U.S., at 870, 117 S.Ct. 2329.

Certainly Packingham can be at minimum cited in challenges to 1st amendment infringements, even if the statute does not prohibit a Facebook account or the like.

Packingham of course had nothing to do with registering internet IDs.