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.
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.
or shining a laser pointer at an air plane or person.
How does that even qualify as speech?
That statement is not consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence. There are limitations on many rights listed in the Constitution. For example, the first amendment has been held *not* to give you the right to incite violence. (See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.)
The answer is that it is not. Interpretation of the constitution comes down to a balancing act between competing rights.
True. That's why this is about the *government's* prosecution of one individual and whether the elements of the crime were actually established.
Context is everything in regards to free speech. Was the post specifically addressed to the subject, i.e. posted on the subject's facebook page vs their own facebook page. What was the author's psychological profile, i.e. any psychological disorders, recent unemployment, history of violence, etc. From what I have researched on the web this guy in urban dictionary terms is a "poser" who is obnoxious and crass but otherwise harmless. The subject was right in alerting authorities and in addition they should have obtained a restraining order against Anthony as well as acquired a firearm to protect themselves. Certainly law enforcement should investigate all perceived threats and in this case they did.
Perhaps his biggest mistake was to fantasize about harming an FBI agent. In a police state any public dissention or insubordination to government authority must be met with harsh retaliation to set an example. We will see if the current supreme court, strict constructionists who deem even money a form of speech, will decide that his speech was protected or that it was illegal and consequentially grant the government power to arbitrarily imprison people solely based verbal expression.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
If free speech were absolute, someone could construct a 30 foot billboard in your neighborhood showing porn videos 24x7.
Yes, and? Only puritans would even care about that.
People could post lies about you and members of your family online, with no fear of consequences to themselves, saying you were neo-Nazi, was busted several times for meth, worked as a prostitute. They could phone in death threats to airplanes and businesses on a daily basis.
So?
It's pretty obvious that society can't function under those conditions.
No, it isn't. Society hasn't collapsed under actual police states in many places. Society wouldn't collapse if people had actual free speech.
I also like how you say "Well, if the government followed the constitution, it would lead to things I don't like!" as if that means the government is following the constitution by ignoring it.
You... do realize the case you're talking about is a case where government thugs decided to completely violate the first amendment by prohibiting "offensive" (absolutely, 100% subjective) speech in public places, yes? You do realize that that is absolutely indefensible? This isn't even a case where people supposedly caused a panic with their speech; this is just government thugs forbidding speech that they don't like.
What you advocate is for the majority to be able to destroy speech of minorities that they don't like by claiming it is offensive. That's unconstitutional (first amendment), morally repugnant, and absolutely dangerous.
Where in their line of reasoning did they err?
How about the part where they modified the first amendment instead of just interpreting it as they're supposed to? The government has no power to prohibit "offensive" speech.