Washington D.C. - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, March 5, 2003, that photos of convicted sex offenders may be posted on the Internet, a victory for states that use the Web to warn citizens about potential predators in their neighborhoods.

In a separate ruling, the court turned back a challenge from sex offenders who argued they deserved a chance to prove they aren't dangerous to avoid having their pictures and addresses put on the Internet.

The decisions came in the Supreme Court's first review of what are known as Megan's laws. They have far-reaching implications because every state and the federal government have sex-offender registry statutes.

The laws are named for 7-year-old Megan Kanka, a New Jersey girl kidnapped, raped and killed in 1994 by a convicted sex criminal who lived in her neighborhood.

The Supreme Court cases, from Alaska and Connecticut, required justices to balance the rights of offenders with the public safety interest in keeping tabs on people who may commit more sex crimes.

The court came down on the side of public safety in both cases, but left the door open for future constitutional challenges.

By a 6-3 vote, justices rejected arguments by two Alaska sex offenders who contended they already served time for sex crimes before the Alaska registration law was passed and were punished a second time with the registry. The Alaska law requires convicts to give police personal information four times a year or risk more prison time.

The government had argued that it was not burdensome for offenders to report to police every 90 days to provide information, including their addresses, and to have their pictures taken, because all people have to fill out paperwork in government office to vote, register a car or get married.

Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed the law is not punitive.

"Our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objection as punishment," he wrote for the majority. "The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender."

In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that "however plain it may be that a former sex offender currently poses no threat of recidivism, he will remain subject to long-term monitoring and inescapable humiliation." Also opposing the court's ruling were Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer.

Information about sex offenders is available online in about three dozen states.

The court also ruled 9-0 that Connecticut did not have to hold separate hearings to determine the risk posed by sex criminals who have completed their prison sentences before putting them in a registry. But Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing that decision, said the case did not give the court the appropriate avenue to decide whether Connecticut's law violates substantive due process rights.

"The court has made a very powerful and compelling statement about the need for objective, accurate information being as available as possible," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said.

Justice David Souter noted in a separate opinion that the court's decision does not affect future constitutional challenges to Megan's laws.

Stevens said that in both rulings his colleagues "fail to decide whether the statutes deprive the registrants of a constitutionally protected interest in liberty."

The cases are Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. John Doe, 01-1231, and Otte v. Doe, 01-729.