Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON (AP) — Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

But his wife didn't see it that way. Neither did a federal jury.

Elonis, who's from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was convicted of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person.

In a far-reaching case that probes the limits of free speech over the Internet, the Supreme Court on Monday was to consider whether Elonis' Facebook posts, and others like it, deserve protection under the First Amendment.

FULL story at link.



FILE - This Nov. 18, 2014, file photo shows the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, as seen from the roof of the U.S. Capitol. Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent. But his wife didn't see it that way. Neither did a federal jury. In a far-reaching case that probes the limits of free speech over the Internet, the Supreme Court on Monday is considering whether Elonis' Facebook posts, and others like it, deserve protection under the First Amendment. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20141130/us--supreme_court-facebook_threats-54ede78cfd.html

[groundloop]

1. I don't believe Anthony Elonis will get any help from the Supreme Court

The only 'people' who can make such exuberant first amendment claims stick are corporations. Since Elonis doesn't fall into that category of protected 'persons' his sick threats will rightly send him to prison.

[cstanleytech]

4. Yup and dont forget a corporation can lie to you like Fox News fought for the right to do and yet

a certain political party will try to impeach you if you are a democrat and lie about a blowjob.

[RobinA]

22. I Tend To Think

that the SC will uphold this guy's First Amendment "rights" to harass and threaten his wife with rape and murder. They may not like to side with individuals, but they REALLY don't like to side with women. Many men I run into tend to take the "well, he didn't MEAN it" stance concerning these kinds of cases.

Personally, I am reserving the right to argue that if state of mind ("I didn't MEAN it&quot is the decider here I have the right to shot the threatener dead if my state of mind is that he DOES mean it.

[Cryptoad]

2. makes as much sense as ,,,,,

Corps are people!

[angrychair]

3. simple case

While I don't agree with his comments or behavior and I believe that nothing should preclude police from looking into comments like his, I would have to agree that nothing should bar him from saying it.
Draws a very fine line when we start shading in the gray as to what type of writing is "ok" and what is not. People on DU should understand that more than most. Would you want to enable rethugs and teabaggers a legal tool to silence people like us? Freedom of speech demands we take the good with the ugly. We don't have to agree and can speak out against it but allow it all the same.
I truly hope SCOTUS rules in this man's favor.

[groundloop]

5. No, not so simple - Courts for years have held that threats against another person aren't protected

If a reasonable person view what he said as a threat then his speech isn't (and shouldn't be) protected. IMO the courts are rightly treating this the same as if he'd said these things out in public instead of over the internet. I agree that just because something is distasteful doesn't mean that it can be censored, but it's entirely different when someone makes threats against the safety of other people.

[JDPriestly]

6. I agree with you.

[geek tragedy]

8. Yep. Especially the part where he wrote about ignoring the restraining order from his ex-wife

and shooting her.

That's a threat.

[angrychair]

12. with all due respect

I believe you and our fellow DUers below, miss my point. My point was and is that typing text in a blog or on Facebook should not be the issue. If I express a desire to harm myself or others than law enforcement should look into these situations to establish the validity of the claim but the speech itself should NOT be a crime. In as much as it does not become harassment (cyberstalking) or defamation of a person's real and online reputation.

Think of it in DU context. If I had went a different route and blasted you and the other DU members, while likely it would be hidden by jury and could be a TOS violation and earn me a pizza does not mean it should be a crime. If this man engaged in cyberstalking and/or it was determined he would (history, planning and means test) have attacked his spouse than a crime has been committed.

I have no issue with a well written cyberstalking law but draw the line at making it a crime to mouth off and express yourself poorly on the Internet.

[Adrahil]

16. So, it should be OK to make threats of violence or rape, ala Gamergate?

I do not believe that is the sort of thing the FA protects.

Too many women have ended up dead because of the attitude that "we can't do anything until he actually does something to you."

[angrychair]

18. Not what I said

I am almost insulted you would even suggethe hst that I even so much as implied such a thing. I write it up to an honest misunderstanding.

Key passage from the statement you replied too:
"If I (or anyone) express a desire to harm myself or others than law enforcement should look into these situations to establish the validity of the claim (based on that person's history, pattern of behavior and means test) but the speech itself should NOT be a crime. In as much as it does not become harassment (cyberstalking) or defamation of a person's real and online reputation."
I added some text for a little more context.

The problem you reference "can't do anything until..." can be resolved with a solid cyberstalking/bullying law that looks at history, pattern of behavior (IRL and online) and means to execute tests. It would require law enforcement to care and do real investigations.
It would also require websites to police their users (much like we do here on DU) to prevent trolls and jerks the platform they need to be jerks and trolls.

[Adrahil]

21. Hmmm....

Well, I did perhaps misunderstand a bit. But I do wish to reiterate that expressing such direct threats SHOULD be a crime in my view. I only need to hear "I'm going to cut your throat" once to take that very seriously. And I'm not comfortable with some jaded cop deciding that it wasn't a "real threat."

Anyway, just my point of view. One of my neighbors was murdered when I was kid in very similar circumstances, which probably makes me more sensitive to it than most. The Ex said "I'm going to kill you." She reported it to the cops who decided it was said in the heat of the moment and not serious. She did get a restraining order, but she was killed four days later.

[angrychair]

23. point well taken

Your concerns are valid and but I still have serious concerns about where lines should be drawn. Very sorry you had such a horrible experience.

[DeSwiss]

7. 'The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.' ~George Orwell

- The tighter they squeeze to contain us, the further they de-legitimize themselves.

In the Bill of Rights of the United States, there is an attempt to secure certain freedoms and protections by way of mere text on paper. Now while I understand the value of this document and the temporal brilliance of it in the context of the period of its creation, that does not excuse the fact that it is a product of social inefficiency and nothing more.

In other words, declarations of laws and rights are actually an acknowledgment of the failures of the social design. There is no such thing as 'rights' - as the reference can be altered at will. The fourth amendment is an attempt to protect against state power abuse, that is clear. But it avoids the real issue, and that is: Why would the state have an interest to search and seize to begin with? How do you remove the mechanisms that generate such behavior? We need to focus on the real cause.

We have to understand that government as we know it today, is not in place for the well being of the public, but rather for the perpetuation of their establishment and their power. Just like every other institution within a monetary system. Government is a monetary invention for the sake of economic and social control and its methods are based upon self-preservation, first and foremost. All a government can really do is to create laws to compensate for an inherent lack of integrity within the social order.

In society today the public is essentially kept distracted and uninformed. This is the way that governments maintain control. If you review history, power is maintained through ignorance.

~Peter Joseph

K&R

[Blue_Tires]

13. So you believe someone should be able to make direct threats of violence

against his ex-wife and co-workers and then just hide behind "artistic expression" and "I was just joking"? You do realize that this isn't some crusader for free speech as much as a budding sociopath refusing to accept responsibility for his actions, right? Did you even read the comments?

As for the lengthy quote, if Joseph (whoever in fuck's name he is) can't imagine any reason why the eponymous "state" should have legitimate powers to search and seize, then I don't know what color the sky is in his universe...All I'll say is I hope he's never a robbery victim, among other things...

[BlueJazz]

9. My concern with this case is: Does this dude have a history of violence/mental illness?

Maybe he has a severe bi-polar problem or intermittent explosive disorder?

If the guy needs help, I don't want to see him spend years in jail.

[Blue_Tires]

14. If it scared his ex-wife enough that she didn't find it "funny" and reported it

I don't need to know much else...

If he had said those things in person, in a letter or over a phone, he would have been in the same amount of trouble, if not more...For one reason or another, the world gives a lot of leeway to things that are "just posted on the internet", and give them a lot less weight (and we see how many tens of thousands of online rape/death threats are directed at feminist activists, but only now are we even sort-of paying attention to the issue now)...

[BlueJazz]

17. I understand what you're saying. I was just hoping that somebody like that could...

...be put in a place that would keep him contained but also be evaluated for his mental problems. (and of course, you DO have mental problems if somebody posted what he posted)

Don't get me wrong,,I'm a royal prick when it comes to violence but my fear is somebody may spend some time in jail/prison, serve his time and revert right back to threats and actions...horrible, unspeakable actions.
I'd like to know what's wrong in the first place.

[Blue_Tires]

19. Well, it's clear that he has some serious issues with women at the minimum

and his little passive-aggressive "internet badass" persona is probably the only way he can dredge up any self-esteem...

[0nirevets]

10. Roberts? Scalia? Deciding an issue of Free Speech? Oy ve.

This SCOTUS is a wrecking ball. Watch out.

If progressive justices ever again have a majority it will take decades to undo the damage from this lot.

[Ykcutnek]

11. Ambiguous death threats are still threats.

I don't care if they're in the form of a threatening note or issued under the guise of "lyrics"

Hope SCOTUS rules against Elonis.

[alarimer]

15. I'm not sure free speech applies on Facebook.

It doesn't on DU, even. There are TOS on both sites and he was certainly probably in violation of them.

And I'm not sure threats are protected speech anyway. At least they shouldn't be. Death threats, rape threats occur frequently online and need to be curtailed. I do believe there should be consequences for people who make those threats. Including criminal charges.

I think you could make the case that he was in violation of the restraining order at the very least, which should warrant jail time (though I know restraining orders are about as useful as the paper they are printed on most of the time).

[branford]

20. A violation of a TOS is not, --by itself--, a criminal offense. It's barely a civil matter.

Last edited Wed Dec 3, 2014, 03:48 AM - Edit history (1)

In this instance, Facebook was simply the medium for the alleged communicated threats, and any government criminalization of such speech certainly has First Amendment implications.

Moreover, not all threats are criminally actionable. Alleged threatening statements and conduct must meet a whole host of exacting conditions before the government can intervene.

I think this case is very interesting, particularly because the nature and extent of comments on the internet and such services like Facebook or even DU do no necessarily parallel normal face to face communications, letters, email and the like.

I personally believe that in close matters, a jury should decide, as it did in the original case. However, I can certainly see both liberal and conservative jurists setting conditions on the prosecution of certain internet communication to ensure too much protected speech is not curtailed.

[X_Digger]

24. If the government came and arrested you for a post on DU, you certainly could object on 1st grounds.

However, having your post hidden by a jury is not a first amendment violation (the government isn't on the jury.)

There's the rub- between you and some random website? No protection of speech (from them.) Between you and the government, via some random website? Speech, maybe protected speech.