The court issued its opinion on Doe v. Cooper and unanimously ruled two sections of the law were unconstitutional. Subsection (a)(2), which was ruled in violation of the First Amendment, said sex offenders could not be within 300 feet of places that were primarily meant for the use, care or supervision of minors if those places were on the premises of areas not focused on minors.
Subdivision (a)(3) prevented certain sex offenders from going near places where minors gather for regular programs and was ruled unconstitutionally vague, and thus considered a violation of due process.
Jamie Markham, an associate professor at the UNC School of Government, said the intent of the law was to protect children.
“I think it was out of a sense that somebody who is a sex offender, regardless of what they were on the sex offender registry for, might be perceived as posing a risk to children, and so I think it was an effort to be as protective as possible,” he said.
Chapel Hill attorney Amos Tyndall said the law limited many forms of free speech because it is impractical to avoid going near any location intended for minors.
“ ... It includes all kinds of activity that’s associated with First Amendment, including free speech in public places as well as religious freedom — attending church,” he said.
The lawsuit was brought against then-Attorney General Roy Cooper, who is now governor-elect, and all North Carolina district attorneys by a group of registered sex offenders, who argued the law was broad, vague and a violation of due process.
“I mean, the government’s trying to protect kids but the issue is that the restriction they put in place applies to lots of sex offenders, including some whose crimes were not against children,” Markham said.
