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

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:Freedom has limits

[Njorthbiatr]

There is no right to not be offended.