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.

Comments

In the news today

[stevez67]

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.

Re:In the news today

[fustakrakich]

Words are not deeds. Everybody needs to stop conflating the two.

If you want to restrict my speech, I want to make women cover themselves. Their provocative dress incites rape.

Not about rap

[phantomfive]

This is not about rap. It could have been written in the form of a poem or a minuet or an angry boring rant, and the question would be the same, at what point does a threat become more than just speech? Here's a quote from the article:

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.

Re: And this is how perverted our system has gotte

[Jason Levine]

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.

Clickbait headline

[Theaetetus]

This case has nothing to do with whether "rap lyric threats" are free speech, but whether convicting someone for making a threat should require that the accused intended to make a threat, or whether a reasonable person who received the message would interpret it as an intentional threat. The former is very difficult to prove and a simple disclaimer would obviate it: "oh, those were just rap lyrics when I said 'I'm coming to your house this evening to cut your throat, you biatch.' Ha ha ha!"

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.

Re:Freedom has limits

[Njorthbiatr]

There is no right to not be offended.

Re:Freedom has limits

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten

[fustakrakich]

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.