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.
An imbecile makes threats specifically against his ex-wife and local police, then tries to hide behind "freedom of speech" after they took his intimidating and threatening rants (calling them rap lyrics is being way too generous) seriously. I guess he thought this was golf and he'd get a mulligan.
I don't even know where to start with this one... The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be. If it weren't then we could all ignore any law we choose and even ignore rulings of the Supreme Court because their powers are based on the same document. So either the Constitution is absolute or it is not - but you can't have it both ways.
However, even with that I don't see how it matters... The bill of rights is supposed to keep us from the Federal Government taking too many rights and amassing too much power (and in doing so has given the federal government way too much power - just as the opponents of the bill of rights originally feared). It should have absolutely no influence in a court case between two individuals.
Peter.
Think of it like this, if these lyrics were written in a bathroom stall, would anyone care about it?
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, or shining a laser pointer at an air plane or person. Sure, a business or person can or should be able to get a restraining order on the person, but that shouldn't stop them from the ability to practice free speech.
For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks".....most lower courts have [ruled] that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.
So apparently the jury decided that a reasonable person would see those Facebook posts as a true threat.
The real thing to take from this is be careful what you say online. It's not ranting in a bar, it's public record.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
None of our rights are absolute. If I were to publish an article in a newspaper claiming that you embezzled millions of dollars with no proof whatsoever, I could be sure for libel. Similarly, I can't threaten people's lives and then claim "Freedom of Speech" when the police arrive. This guy made a specific threat against people. It doesn't matter that the threat was in the form of rap lyrics or a handwritten note. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The wider implication is in the area of cyberbullying and online death threats - if threats are judged from the perspective of a reasonable recipient, rather than the intent of the sender, then the "oh, everyone makes death threats online, they'd never follow through" defense fizzles away.
There is no right to not be offended.
The "offense" in this case is a threat of violence directed at specific people with whom the speaker has a dispute with, which is rather more serious than someone just finding the lyrics in poor taste.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I don't even know where to start with this one... The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be. If it weren't then we could all ignore any law we choose and even ignore rulings of the Supreme Court because their powers are based on the same document. So either the Constitution is absolute or it is not - but you can't have it both ways.
However, even with that I don't see how it matters... The bill of rights is supposed to keep us from the Federal Government taking too many rights and amassing too much power (and in doing so has given the federal government way too much power - just as the opponents of the bill of rights originally feared). It should have absolutely no influence in a court case between two individuals.
Peter.
I don't know why this got "insightful" points. Let's see... First, the free speech protections in the first amendment have never been absolute: from yelling fire in a crowded theater to threatening to kill someone, there have always been reasonable limits. In fact, no limitation in the Bill of Rights is absolute - we don't allow prison inmates to have guns, you can't practice your human sacrifice-based religion, etc.
Second, this has nothing to do with "a court case between two individuals." See the title, Elonis vs. United States? That's a criminal conviction - Elonis is appealing because he was convicted of a crime. And the government certainly has "influence in a court case" where the government is one of the parties.
At least your signature seems to be correct. So there's that.
The Supreme Court is usually made up of hardcore authoritarians that modify the constitution with invisible ink in order to give the government more power. Citing their invalid opinions and appealing to authority will not change reality.
If speech can incite violence (it doesn't ), then provocative clothing can incite rape (it doesn't), and we have to cover our women head to toe.. Let's all try to be a bit consistent here. Otherwise you're inciting the imposition of Islamic law.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”