Image: Shut­ter­stock Remix Jason Koe­bler Jus­tices Kennedy and Ali­to are engaged in a low-key cap­i­tal­iza­tion that may change the future of law. In its Mon­day deci­sion on the First Amend­ment and social media, the Supreme Court entered into one of the most divi­sive debates today: whether the word “Inter­net” cap­i­tal­ized. And remark­ably, the jus­tices’ choice of cap­i­tal­iza­tion appears mean­ing­ful, in ways that that could shape future tech­nol­o­gy law. The deci­sion in Pack­ing­ham v. North Car­oli­na struck down a North Car­oli­na law pro­hibit­ing reg­is­tered sex offend­ers from access­ing social media ser­vices on First Amend­ment grounds. Although all eight jus­tices (Gor­such did not ) agreed that the law was imper­mis­si­ble, they divid­ed sharply on the rea­son­ing — and on cap­i­tal­iza­tion style. Jus­tice Kennedy, writ­ing for a five-jus­tice major­i­ty, rea­soned that the “vast demo­c­ra­t­ic forums of the Inter­net” are “the most impor­tant places…for the exchange of views” today. Thus, said, even bar­ring reg­is­tered sex offend­ers from just tra­di­tion­al social net­work­ing ser­vices “like Face­book, LinkedIn, and Twit­ter” was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al ser­vices are now “inte­gral to the fab­ric of our mod­ern soci­ety and cul­ture.” In con­trast, Jus­tice Ali­to, writ­ing for him­self, Chief Jus­tice Roberts, and Jus­tice Thomas, found “the inter­net […]