Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Elonis v. United States, in a case that could result in more attention paid to language in online postings. After a series of angry posts on Facebook in the form of explicit rap lyrics "about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent," Anthony Elonis "was convicted of making threats of violence and sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison. A federal appeals court rejected his claim that his comments were protected by the First Amendment.
The Obama administration says requiring proof that a speaker intended to be threatening would undermine the law's protective purpose. In its brief to the court, the Justice Department argued that no matter what someone believes about his comments, it does not lessen the fear and anxiety they might cause for other people.
And you're either a troll or completely clueless. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta
The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be.
So, even when the constitution was written, there were different viewpoints on how to interpret it. Your approach was that taken by Jefferson. He said, "anything not written in the constitution is not allowed."
The viewpoint kind of died when it turned out to not be practical. Jefferson tried, but when it came time for the Louisiana purchase, he realized the constitution didn't authorize him to purchase the land. Also, there wasn't enough time to modify the constitution. So he bought the land anyway, without modifying the constitution.
Jefferson was the prime proponent of that viewpoint. If he couldn't do it, then it was doubted that anyone could do it. So now we have three defenses of democracy: the soapbox, the ballot box.....
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
None of our rights are absolute.
Are you even capable of comprehending the difference between someone saying that things should be a certain way and things are a certain way?
Because responding to someone doing the former by doing the latter is simply offtopic. It's like saying to people who criticize the NSA's mass surveillance, "The NSA is conducting mass surveillance and violating the constitution." Yeah, thanks, except we already knew that, and that's why they're being criticized. You really don't need to tell us the current horrible state of affairs, because we're all aware.
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.
Under that logic, North Korea has just as much free speech as the US, because you might get murdered or imprisoned for your speech, but you can still say things! You're just not free from the *consequences* of your speech (which is, actually, nothing).
The only time when the idea of free speech should be trumped, is when there is intent to cause harm, like yelling bomb or fire in a crowded area
The first amendment lists no such exceptions. If people panic and harm others, that is on them and no one else.
There have always been limits to the 1st Amendment. At least the Supreme Court has always believed there are limits and contrary to ideologues' rantings it is the Supreme Court's job to define how the Constitution applies in the real world. Here's a Wikipedia page on United States free speech exceptions.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
The bill of rights [...]. It should have absolutely no influence in a court case between two individuals.
If this was a civil trial, you'd have a point. But it isn't, and you don't.
The case is Elonis v. United States, not Elonis v. Ex-Wife.
The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be. [...] So either the Constitution is absolute or it is not - but you can't have it both ways.
Well, then the Constitution isn't absolute.
Constitutional literalists seem to ignore that there was an extensive body of common law and common interpretations of law before the Constitution was ever written. Things that were illegal didn't suddenly become legal just because they weren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
/The only crimes mentioned in the Constitution: piracy, counterfeiting, bribery, treason, and "high crimes and misdemeanors"
/But the Constitution doesn't state what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are, so i guess that's not enforceable?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!