indecent liberties

On April 26, 1983, Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, delivered a speech at a school assembly nominating a fellow student for student elective office. Approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14 years old, attended the assembly, which formed part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. Students were required to attend the assembly or report to study hall. During the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate using an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor. Two teachers with whom Fraser discussed the contents of his speech in advance informed him that the speech was inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it. During the delivery, a school counselor observed that some students hooted and yelled while others graphically simulated the sexual activities alluded to in the speech, and some appeared bewildered and embarrassed. One teacher found it necessary the following day to forgo a portion of the scheduled class lesson to discuss the speech with the class. The school maintained a disciplinary rule stating that conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures. The morning after the assembly, the assistant principal called Fraser into her office, notified him that the school considered the speech a violation of the rule, presented him with copies of five letters from teachers describing his conduct, and after he admitted giving the speech and deliberately using sexual innuendo, informed him that he would be suspended for three days and that his name would be removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker. Fraser served two days of the suspension. He sought review through the school district's grievance procedures, where the hearing officer determined that the speech was indecent, lewd, and offensive to the modesty and decency of many students and faculty and affirmed the discipline in its entirety. Fraser, by his father as guardian ad litem, brought this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court held that the sanctions violated his First Amendment rights, that the disruptive-conduct rule was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that removal of his name from the graduation speaker list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, awarding him $278 in damages and $12,750 in litigation costs and attorney's fees while enjoining the district from preventing him from speaking at commencement. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In 2008 North Carolina enacted a statute making it a felony for a registered sex offender to gain access to commercial social networking Web sites, including commonplace social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter. The statute defined a commercial social networking Web site by four criteria including operation for revenue, facilitation of social introductions, allowance of personal profiles, and provision of communication mechanisms, while exempting sites limited to photo-sharing, electronic mail, instant messenger, or chat rooms and those primarily facilitating commercial transactions. According to sources cited to the Court, the statute applies to about 20,000 people in North Carolina and the State has prosecuted over 1,000 people for violating it. In 2002 petitioner Lester Gerard Packingham, then 21, pleaded guilty to taking indecent liberties with a child after having sex with a 13-year-old girl. Because the offense qualifies as an offense against a minor, he was required to register as a sex offender and was therefore barred under the 2008 statute from gaining access to commercial social networking sites. In 2010 a state court dismissed a traffic ticket against Packingham. In response, he posted on his personal Facebook profile a statement celebrating the dismissal. A Durham Police Department officer investigating potential violations of the statute noticed the post, made inquiries, and obtained evidence by search warrant confirming the poster's identity. Packingham was indicted for violating the statute. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss, and he was convicted and given a suspended prison sentence. At no point did the State allege that Packingham had contacted a minor or committed any other illicit act on the Internet. On appeal, a North Carolina Court of Appeals struck down the statute. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed. Two justices dissented. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and now reviews the case.

John Roe, a San Diego police officer, produced and sold videotapes depicting himself stripping out of a police uniform and engaging in sexually explicit acts. He marketed these videos along with custom videos and police equipment, including official San Diego Police Department uniforms, through an eBay account under the username Code3stud@aol.com, which he linked to his law enforcement employment. Roe's supervisor discovered the listings while browsing eBay and recognized Roe from the images. The supervisor shared the materials with higher-ranking officers, prompting an internal affairs investigation. During the investigation, Roe produced an additional custom video at the request of an undercover officer showing him revoking a traffic citation after performing indecent acts in uniform. The San Diego Police Department determined that Roe's conduct violated departmental policies on conduct unbecoming an officer, outside employment, and immoral conduct. After Roe failed to fully comply with an order to cease selling such materials, the department initiated termination proceedings, resulting in his dismissal from the force. Roe filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the termination infringed his First Amendment rights. The district court granted the City's motion to dismiss, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision. The Supreme Court granted the City's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's judgment.

Respondent Laura Lee Wright and Robert L. Giles were jointly charged with two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under 16, in violation of Idaho Code § 18-1508 (1987). The alleged victims were respondent's two daughters, one of whom was 5½ and the other 2½ years old at the time the crimes were charged. The allegations surfaced in November 1986 when the older daughter told Cynthia Goodman, Louis Wright's female companion, that Giles had had sexual intercourse with her while respondent held her down and covered her mouth, and that she had seen respondent and Giles do the same thing to the younger daughter. Goodman reported the disclosures to the police the next day and took the older daughter to the hospital. A medical examination of the older daughter revealed evidence of sexual abuse. One of the examining physicians was Dr. John Jambura, a pediatrician with extensive experience in child abuse cases. Police and welfare officials took the younger daughter into custody that day for protection and investigation. Dr. Jambura examined her the following day and found conditions strongly suggestive of sexual abuse with vaginal contact, occurring approximately two to three days prior to the examination. At the joint trial of respondent and Giles, the trial court conducted a voir dire examination of the younger daughter, who was three years old at the time of trial, to determine whether she was capable of testifying. The court concluded, and the parties agreed, that the younger daughter was not capable of communicating to the jury. Over objection by respondent and Giles, the trial court permitted Dr. Jambura to testify before the jury regarding statements the younger daughter made during an interview in his office. Dr. Jambura testified that he began with chitchat questions, then asked whether the child played with daddy, whether daddy played with her, whether daddy touched her with his pee-pee, and whether she touched his pee-pee. The child responded that they played together, admitted that daddy touches her with his pee-pee, stated that he does it a lot more with her sister than with her, and volunteered the last statement after she sort of clammed up. Respondent and Giles were each convicted of two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under 16 and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. Each appealed only from the conviction involving the younger daughter. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed respondent's conviction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.