California Court concludes Social - Media posts aren't a First Amendment Right

A California Court finds social - media posts aren't a First Amendment Right

December 26th, 2018 by Ephrat Livni

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" from the Constitution. As social media users, we must be aware that what we post online may not always be covered under the First Amendment and that was made clear in this article.

In AA v. The People, a juvenile, AA, is 16 years old and he was placed on probation by a Los Angeles County Court because he assaulted someone on a basketball court. He was put on a limit for social media which was legal for rehabilitation purposes and to protect the victim. While his case was under review, AA posted a picture of his subpoena on Instagram with the caption "{N}ew Netflix series coming. I'm a 16-year- old felon." He was admonished by the judge but did not stop there. He continued following up with a video of him dancing in front of the courthouse.

The court told AA to take down all social - media posts that had to do with his case and was prohibited from posting anything further while his case was still in review. AA then filed an appeal arguing that the probation "conditions violates his free - speech rights." The court stressed the position of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Basically, it IS true that AA has the right to speak freely, but his freedom is legally altered by probation conditions designed to protect the victim and rehabilitate himself. They believed the social media posts could engager the victim, who had to undergo two plastic surgeries and is permanently scarred from the assault. "It's notable that the Supreme Court case involved in a North Carolina law 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."

This decision is interesting because it shows how social- media us has penetrated the culture, especially those currently in their teens. AA said he posted that specific video in front of the courthouse because "I (he) do(es) have a lot of Instagram followers" and they tend to care about what he is doing.

This article is a clear example of why we must learn that there is a fine line of posting what we want people to see, and then remembering it can hurt us if we are not careful and are not protected by our rights of the First Amendment. With how our generation is changing, we must keep in the back of our minds that what we post can negatively effect us in the future, and even possibly be brought up in court if we were to ever get in trouble. Learning from AA, we can learn a simple message that people do not need to see EVERYTHING that we are doing. There should be some sort of privacy when it comes to the things you publish because once it lands in the wrong hands, we could be in trouble for life.

By the title of the Article, it is evident that social - media posts are not always a First Amendment Right.