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.
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
There's a limit to "free speech" and saying you're going to kill someone in a "rap", isn't free speech.
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.
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com...
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.
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."
Who wants to bet that Obama and Holder were great First Amendment supporters back in 1992 during the Body Count "Cop Killer" brouhaha?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
And you're either a troll or completely clueless. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta
I beg to differ. Our Constitutional Rights are not absolute. There are exceptions to free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Hannibal already did it.
SPOILER ALERT!
-
-
-
-
In one episode, Lechter flash-freezes a CSI and vertically bisects her body. He sandwiches one half in glass, and vertically bisects the other half, sandwiching the middle quarter in glss and bisecting the outer quarter, sandwiching the middle eighth and bisecting the outer eighth, all the way down until he's got eight sandwiches, then he stands them in a museum atrium for the police to find. I fucking love that show.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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."
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.
That's all this is, it's balancing the laws protecting citizens against credible threats vs. the free speech rights of the person making the threat. Whether it rhymes, is set to music, or is in iambic pentameter is irrelevant. Threatening speech is like pornography, judges have to know it when they hear it.
Gently reply
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
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.
Morse.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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 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.
>>The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute.
>That statement is not consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence. There are limitations on many rights listed in the Constitution
Only because the Supreme Court is, and has always been, corrupt.
There is no right to not be offended.
On the contrary it has everything to do with it.
The court can't compel you to do anything if it's free speech.
> Only because the Supreme Court is, and has always been, corrupt. Let's focus on the argument and not the people making it. What part of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire do you disagree with?
That's the very argument GP is arguing against. What's the retort to that point? All the article does is show how uniformly the First Amendment has been applied (or lack thereof, in the positive), not what the reality is supposed to be (in the normative).
That is, show us the free speech exception in the United States Constitution, instead of just assuming SCOTUS rulings are always correct. (And there are actually a few! Copyright law as mentioned in Article 1 section 8, for instance.)
Wonder what the public key field is for?
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.
Bullshit. I can be as rude as I want to anyone that I want and there isn't a damned thing they can do about it. If you have such thin skin that you can't handle it, then you need to remove yourself from society, little boy.
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!
The linked copypasta is actually germane to the case. Your grandmother who never used the Internet would likely perceive it as a threat. Those of us who live on the Internet recognize it for what it is.
To further illustrate the point:
What in the blue blazes did you just say about my client, you prevaricating bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in Harvard, and I've been involved in numerous cases before the Supreme Court, and I have over 300 cases settled with extreme prejudice. I am trained in litigation and I'm the top lawyer in the entire bar. You are nothing to me but just another defendant. I will wipe you the fuck out with decisions the likes of which has bever been seen before in this Court, mark my fucking words. You think you can defame my client over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we type I am subpoenaing NSA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the deposition, maggot. The deposition that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're in fucking contempt, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can drag this case out in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with this pen. Not only am I extensively trained in litigation, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the docket, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will file suit all over you and you will drown in it. I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram, kiddo!
It's the middle ground between threat and hyperbole (or in this post, the line between barratry and comedy) that things get hairy. And that is precisely what the Supreme Court is dealing with in this case.
There's very little the SC puts up with nowadays.
And Obama is supposedly a "constitutional law professor". Well, yes, Obama, that statement is technically true. And that has what to do with its constitutionality?
Oh, you were talking about its meme value as a political. populist narrative power vector.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Everyone gets all bent out of shape about their freedom of speech getting stepped on. You can say anything you want to, but you might also have to live with the consequences of that speech. The first amendment does not absolve you of that.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Where's the guy who's trying to start fires with his mind when you need him?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You have a right not to receive death threats, thank god.
Imagine what a dystopic hellhole this would be if people walked around fearing for their lives because the police let abusive psychopaths run free because death threats were "free speech".
That's the very argument GP is arguing against. What's the retort to that point?
The founding fathers were wrong when they thought their descendents wouldn't turn into absolute morons within three centuries.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
This is a tricky one.
The old adage is that you have free speech only in so far as that is not used intentionally to cause harm i.e. Willfully shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre is well known. The key aspect here is willful speech, just shouting something like FIRE without willful intent is not enough and has occurred in differing circumstances because of illness or being miss-heard.
In this case the perpetrator has posted in a semi-public forum speech that could be construed as a manifesto of illegal action. If there were evidence that the actions were being planned or that there were a conspiracy in progress then that would be a convictable charge. But, the act of speaking of an illegal action you wish to do (especially in public) even if there is intention is still protected, but only in so far as that society may take that intention into account in restricting your movements by legal torte.
In Summary, you can declare you full and willful intention to 'Kill' your enemy. But if you do, don't be surprised if they are forewarned and take restrictive legal action against you. Conversely, any reasonable person would not do such if they did intend to perform the act as speaking out would mark them clearly as the perpetrator. Unless they feared no prosecution.
We can fire you, ignore you, shun you, refuse to do business with you, etc. If you are rude and abusive to enough people you will die alone and unloved.
Think of the chi---er, sheep, won't you?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The government says it does not matter what Elonis intended, and that the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.
A reasonable person. Like Snoop Dogg or Katie Couric? I have a feeling that Snoop will believe at least the guy was trying to rhyme, Katie would probably feel extremely threatened. I personally don't think this guy would even be in front of a judge if he kept his amazing rhyming skills to himself when drawing upon the memories of meeting an FBI agent. There is this thing called context one must ask for before assuming anything I think, but maybe not? This case is going to be setting an interesting precedent for online speech in general, lets just hope the judge listens to rap in his free time. An interesting question is, are we under oath when posting on Facebook? If I posted, "I killed that bitch, ripped her head off with her spine through her torso." A reasonable person might believe I've committed murder, unless they asked, "What do you mean?", at which time I would reply, "I was playing Mortal Kombat against Sheeva using Sub-Zero, got the Fatality just in time."
Flooding in an attempt to dissuade rebuttal?
Time for Slashdot Meme #23: You're about 12 years old, right?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
There are some things that clearly disturb the general public to the point where the police are justified in stopping as it is happening due to the specifics of the situation but which should not be criminal offenses thanks to the First Amendment. In other words, the speech should be "partially protected" - if the police tell you to stop saying such and such in a particular situation, and you refuse to comply, then a charge of disorderly conduct may be in order, but if you do comply and go and say the same exact words in a different environment where a reasonable person wouldn't foresee that those hearing your words would react in a way that is criminal, the police shouldn't be allowed to touch you.
A hypothetical (I hope) example would be a person bent on inciting mischief (or even a person with no such motive but a huge lack of awareness of human behavior) going to a large, not-all-that-well-organized protest against the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri and saying quite loudly that "poor people should be allowed to walk into any store and take what they want" while not saying anything that sounds like "let's go raid the store across the street now" (that would be inciting others to commit a crime, which is likely already in the "not protected" category).
The police should rightly be able to order the person "cease and desist" as a reasonable person would view the words said in that specific context where the crowd is both large and not following a single leader as likely to incite at least one protester to commit a criminal act (note that this assumption that the words plus the situation would likely result in a criminal act likely wouldn't hold if the crowd was small or the number of people not respecting the protest's leader's instructions were small). If the same person then wrote those exact same words in a newspaper column or a blog, and took no specific actions to make sure that his words were seen by the protesters, then the police should leave him alone, he's just stating his opinion.
Now, we as a society have to be very careful about this. When in doubt, leave people alone to say what they want. If the end result is violence or other criminal acts, then the next time someone says something similar in a similar situation, the police will be able to rightly claim "history has taught us that if we don't get this person to pick a better time and place to speak his peace, criminal acts are likely to occur."
A similar situation exists with speech that is directly threatening:
* Does it actually cause someone to fear for their life or safety?
* Would a reasonable person see that the person's words, delivered in the manner in which they were delivered, cause a person to fear for their life or safety?
* Given the entire situation, is it crystal clear after the fact that there was a clear, actual, intentional, credible threat?
If the first two questions are yes and the 3rd is no, then the proper police response is to shut the guy down and tell him to find a different way of communicating the same message. Of course, if all 3 are true then that's already covered by existing statutes and case law.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Actually, as an amendment, the1st overrides copyright law. It is absolutely absolute. The court is wrong, but they have the bullets, so that make them right.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I agree. I don't see a problem with maintaining our rights and then busting murderers, rapists, thieves, etc, when they actually are caught doing the crime or afterward. We can't all be so scared about the possibility of bad things that we give up the great things we have (rights/freedoms). Are we seriously trying to move into thoughtcrime and massive nanny-state/big-brother living where we need the government to PREVENT anything bad from happening? Please... Life is too short, even when it goes well, to shut it all down in fear.
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!”
Words and deeds are not the same thing. Do not treat them like they are. If you want actually legal restrictions, you must modify the constitution. And you better put in something about skimpy clothing too. Because if any speech can cause me to involuntarily respond negatively, then so can anything. *The devil made me so it* is a legitimate defense.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That is simply restating that you disagree with the outcome. That is too broad to be able to have a discussion about. What part of the opinion that led to that outcome do you disagree with? Where in their line of reasoning did they err?
To bad all your lucid points are being lost in your spam. Or maybe you're sending a different message?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Contrary to popular media, there's no insanity defense.
Contrary to your belief, the insanity defense is valid in U.S. federal court and all but 4 U.S. states.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
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.
How did this spammer manage to post all those spammy posts in less than one minute, while we all have to wait anywhere from 2 to 5 minutes to post a second comment?
Methinks there is a hole somewhere in slashcode. Not that Dice gives a damn.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Criminals usually are. These are the same idiots who complain to the cops that someone ripped them off on a rock of crack.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
A threat is a threat, no matter how "nicely" you try to wrap it up.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Correct. The point is that SCOTUS jurisprudence often has fsck-all to do with the Constitution.
A perfect example. Chaplinsky was engaging in exactly the sort of political speech that most requires protection and was in no way inciting violence. He called somebody a nasty name, that's all. The Court's absurd and immoral decision had neither law (i.e., the text of the Constitution) nor reason on its side.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Your freedom ends, where someone else's nose begins.
In that case, quit punching me in the nose.
What's that? You wonder how I concluded that you are violating my rights? It's simple really.
If this rapper violated another person's rights by just talking, then you are right here, right now, violating my rights by just talking.
I can't say I've heard this position before, and it doesn't really make sense. Laws are interpreted by most specific supersedes most general; not most recent supersedes oldest. This is called lex specialis , it's a mainstay of parliamentary procedure as used in common law settings like the US.
When laws are repealed, it's because they're specifically removed, e.g. "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." (When SCOTUS finds a law unconstitutional, it remains "on the books" as do all laws, but common law prohibits other courts from being able to enforce it since an unconstitutional law is no law at all.)
The Bill of Rights wasn't supposed to introduce new "rights" but merely codify the ones that already existed. To be clear: There's no law permitting Congress to restrict the freedom of speech, therefore the law is unconstitutional. The First Amendment is unnecessary in this case.
In some cases, the First Amendment might add additional protections where the law is otherwise more generic and would allow it. Primarily, this means state constitutions. The Consititution was expanded so the Bill of Rights guarantees apply to state-level actions, too. In these cases where state-level actions are curbed, the First Amendment (via the Fourteenth Amendment) is to credit.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
No, but unless they fell under the Constitutional powers of the feds, they remained state crimes, not federal ones.
OTOH, some things that were illegal in the states did suddenly become legal when the 14th Amendment was passed. Any laws restricting free speech, religious liberty, etc., as well as any provisions creating unequal protection, were null and void from that point on.
Of course, the state often operates under unconstitutional, null and void laws anyway, as much as it can get away with. Jim Crow was illegal, marriage inequality is illegal, much of the War on Drugs and the War on Guns and the War on Copying is illegal, but they've got the guns.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I'm convinced they have priority. Take a glance at the journal section. I haven't checked recently, but the spam ratio appears to have stabilized around 400:1...
Despite all this, I sincerely hope that it does not provoke deletions by the editors. Censorship would be much offensive than the spam.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I guess my post was like the joke about the ceiling - it's obviously over your head :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If that's the way it has to be, Then I insist that short skirts and exposed cleavage incite rape, and we can just accept that free will does not exist, that we are compelled to act by one's words or appearance. Some pigs will just have to be a little less equal.
Would you like to try again, but with a comment that makes sense and is in some way relevant to the thread, rather than just ranting about biatches accusing you of harassment?
And this is why just 5 mod points aren't going to cut it.
while
If I make a threat to kill
The whole world must relax and chill
Because I define the things I say
And you must take them just that way
And when I act offensively
You must accept my artistry
Because my right to have my say
Trumps your right to a peaceful day.
Actually, the first amendment comes after the copyright clause. Amendments change the constitution, so any ability of the government to restrict speech was overridden by the first amendment.
Wow. This must be one of the looniest arguments I've heard in a while.
Look, the Constitution was ratified and enacted in 1789. The first Congress began meeting on March 4, 1789. The Bill of Rights was debated and passed by Congress to be sent to the states for approval on September 25, 1789. The first Copyright Act (i.e., the very first time Congress decided to exercise its power to create a federal copyright system) was approved by Congress on May 25, 1790.
So, what you're telling me is that Congress approved a Bill of Rights in September, and then a few months later Congress (composed of THE SAME PEOPLE) voted to approve a copyright act that went against the very principles they had voted for in the Bill of Rights just a few months before?
WHY? Explain that. WHY? Why would Congress vote away power in proposed amendments and then assert it -- without comment -- just a few months later?
The only RATIONAL conclusion is that the people who actually voted to enact the First Amendment did NOT think they had invalidated the copyright clause of their brand-new Constitution.
Nothing in the entire Federalist, so-called Anti-Federalist papers, or drafts of the Bill of Rights support this theory. Major citation needed. If you can find this, great! But I can't.
I don't like intellectual property any more than the next guy on /., but the First Amendment was not written to intentionally or unintentionally supersede Congress' copyright law-making ability, which is more specific than the First amendment.
The order of the provisions don't matter. The Constitution is a single, cohesive work spread across something like a dozen sheets of paper (two for the unamended Constitution; one for the Bill of Rights and 27th amendment and including one proposed amendment not (yet) part of the Constitution; and whatever the rest of the amendments are written on).
Like all common law works, the order of the statutes doesn't matter, and the dates in which they were passed doesn't matter. Hence why laws repealed specifically mention the sections of the Code to modify, or which previous laws are null and void. It is called lex specialis and instead of refuting my point, you just reiterated your point without managing to explain the hard reality of common law away.
Another example:
Before this amendment, Congress already had no power to search and seize property (unless maybe they could work it into "necessary and proper", because it's generally agreed there needs to be some warrant system in order to serve justice).
After the amendment, now there's an exception! Now all of a sudden, the ability to search and seize property is in (very narrow) cases, actually permitted. For better or worse.
Regardless, now "necessary and proper" no longer applies to search warrants, the more specific Fourth Amendment is the exclusive statute on what's lawful.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
And what about thrash/death metal bands? Are their lyrics a crime too? Like Exodus, Slayer, Cannibal Corpse, Kreator, etc? Are metalheads and punk rockers now all retroactively now considered terrorists?
This is seriously f**ked up. The Supreme Court better inject some sanity here or things are about to get stupid.
The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be.
If it's absolute, then we have to interpret the second amendment as permitting individuals to possess weapons of mass destruction. If we don't allow the government to restrict me from keeping nuclear bombs, large amounts of nerve gas, and big vats of anthrax in my garage, we've reached the kind of reductio ad absurdum of Constitutional construction that Justice Jackson criticized in his dissent in Terminiello : "There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
It's perfectly relevant. You have no more right to restrict what a person says any more than you have to dictate fashion (though the censors are trying to do that also). Their dogma is no better than Sharia law. All you are doing is validating *The devil made me do it* defense. That's not a good idea, but it does keep the slaves from rebelling, so maybe it is good idea, huh? Who wants a bunch of unruly untouchables around?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I don't see the perceived "importance" of a law as germane to whether it should be consistently interpreted...
Well, not completely ...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
A threat is a threat, even if it's on key and has a backbeat.
What matters here is the constitution, which is available to all.
There have been people convicted of Armed robbery despite them being verifiably UNarmed at the time. It's just that the victims thought the person was armed, so they got prosecuted on that misperception, and convicted. o.O
There is a difference between language that offends and threats of violence!
It's perfectly relevant. You have no more right to restrict what a person says any more than you have to dictate fashion (though the censors are trying to do that also). Their dogma is no better than Sharia law. All you are doing is validating *The devil made me do it* defense. That's not a good idea, but it does keep the slaves from rebelling, so maybe it is good idea, huh? Who wants a bunch of unruly untouchables around?
Yes, that's exactly it: preventing someone from making threats is no better than Sharia law.
Anyway, since we're in Crazytown and you're clearly the Mayor, there's no need to keep discussing this.
If only he'd made the threats while dancing naked, he would clearly be protected by the first amendment.
No, it goes beyond the written law. If you can tell me what to say, I can tell you what to wear. Clothing is no less provocative than the word. It sends a message, whether you agree or not. Unfortunately various governments are into regulating clothing also... Maybe we should declare miniskirts and tight tops as gang clothing. Censorship is vile and its enforcers and supporters are despicable little dictators. But 98% of the world disagrees. Authoritarianism is very popular. It enables a kind of personal feudalism.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...there's no need to keep discussing this.
Absolutely right! It is much better to develop a means of circumventing censorship entirely. Then the little dictators can cry alone.
That's too bad that you, too, have such difficulty separating word from deed. The only possible threat is the act of doing, not speaking.
You make sloppy interpretations of written law and call me crazy. Eh, whatever. Just don't expect any respect for any of it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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..
Covering women head to toe incites Ferengis to imagine undressing them. Do you really want that?
Well, knowing what I do about Ferengis, they would probably keep their fantasies to themselves unless they could get a good price and merchandising and distribution rights.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's impossible to tell a genuine insane rant from a "joke".
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
No. You'd shoot to stop a threat, not to kill.
So some Casper Milk Toast wets his pants over lyrics that many other people find funny. It seems to me Casper is the one to be punished for being such an over sensitive freak, A minister that complains that a person will burn in eternal hell if they are not a baptized and repentant Christian could be considered as menacing and threatening. These restraints on speech need to stop. A rap singer is says I'm going to eat your baby does it for comic effect. And I suppose that some listeners to rap music salivate over a day in which cops will be gunned down. But most sane people very much realize that the notion of fighting a well trained police force is foolish. And the notion that citizens with hand guns and rifles can put down the military is just plain stupid. There is no city anywhere that the military can not crush with ease. It is only because one goal is to avoid killing innocents that clearing a city of combatants is difficult at all.
A difference here is that you seem to be proposing that others' rights should be restricted to prevent you from committing a crime. i.e. Clothes (or lack of clothes) might make you want to rape people.
The case in question (way up above all the curious "stop talking about free speech" spam) seems to be one where a person was threatening to break the law by hurting people himself, not provoking some crime in others.
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I do see a difference between concern about this person's threats and your concern about your susceptibility to raping people.
I'd suggest perhaps closing your eyes all the time and imagining people dressed in calming clothes. This might be a less restrictive solution for everyone. You won't commit a crime based on your lack of self control, and the rest of us can get on with life.
Will there be more spam now?
"Ruthlessly pursuing the idea that the accordion is just another instrument."
Damn, look at all those sleeper accounts. At least one even has excellent karma.
Yes. Blech. I enjoy reading at score:-1 so that I can see the occasional undeserved down-mod, but I'd really like a feature that takes posts that are 99.999% the same and only displays the diffs or maybe an account feature where certain phrases (edited per user) trigger an entire post to be blanked out in that user's view. This page is currently very hard to read with all the pointless MyCleanPC spam.
In this case you need to draw a line by carefully looking at the what we do know for sure. Yes his estranged wife did feel threaten but, their was a disclaimer on his Facebook page that said all his songs were fictitious. That fact alone changes the context of the messages expressed. Threatening the FBI agent was stupid but, it was an artistic expression rather than just a threatening post on Facebook. That means that the court is jailing freedom of artistic expression. So in essence their ruling should be deemed unconstitutional. Now let us compare the threats made by Anthony to the threat that Ted Nugent made against Obama that caused the secret service to pay him a visit. Ted made a direct threat to the U.S. President and the secret service felt that it was threatening enough to investigate him. Anthony made a song on his Facebook page with threatening lyrics directed toward his ex and an FBI agent. His Facebook had a disclaimer. He gets 44 months in jail and yet Ted is walking free. I make this comparison because why is it that the line is differently in these two instances? The final point I want to make is that if we don't press against court rulings that are unconstitutional then how far can they go in taking away our freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean speech without consequences. See: slander. How is that different? If the first amendment is absolute, then we should let people lie and destroy other's reputation at will.
have the courage of you convictions or wimp out - bye !
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You are wrong. The threats are lies until the attempt is made, and even then only the actual attempt is actionable. Words are NOT deeds, and they can compel nothing. Please don't even try to convince me otherwise. I know the difference.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You are over simplifying. It's actually quite well understood that seeing endless images of scantily clad women who are often there just to be sex objects does create an atmosphere where rape becomes more acceptable. If she dresses like those other women who are there for your gratification, and you "pay" her with a date and an a few drinks, she owes you, right? A little more alcohol for encourage perhaps... So, there is a very powerful argument for limiting the availability of images like that, at least to minors and in public spaces.
It's also well understood that a lot of the British people currently fighting and murdering in Syria and Iraq were incited to go there by preaching and videos seen online, so clearly speech can encourage people to violence.
The freedom to say and do whatever you like has to be balanced against the freedom of others to not live in fear of murder or rape. Freedom is not just negative, i.e. freedom from interference. Freedom can be positive, the freedom to live some kind of reasonable life. If your neighbour decided to stand outside his house screaming political slogans all night would that be okay because it's his right to speak freely? Clearly there is some consideration of the consequences of speech, as well as the content.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This isn't about your speech causing someone to react violently and then claiming that your speech made them do it.
This is about someone saying "I'm going to kill you and your child" and then saying "well, that's a rap lyric so it's protected speech." Death threats don't count as freedom of speech and never have. We have quite a bit of leeway when it comes to freedom of speech (and rightly so), but there is still a boundary. Making unsubstantiated allegations about someone can get you in legal trouble (albeit via a civil suit, not a criminal one) and making death threats against a person or group of people can get you in trouble.
If this guy said offensive things about his wife, the kindergarten class, and the FBI agent, he'd have been fine. Being offensive is completely within your free speech rights. But making death threats is not.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
You are over simplifying. It's actually quite well understood that seeing endless images of scantily clad women who are often there just to be sex objects does create an atmosphere where rape becomes more acceptable. If she dresses like those other women who are there for your gratification, and you "pay" her with a date and an a few drinks, she owes you, right? A little more alcohol for encourage perhaps... So, there is a very powerful argument for limiting the availability of images like that, at least to minors and in public spaces.
Get off my lawn! You're only make a case against free will. If that is what you believe, then say it, so the discussion can move forward. Words and pictures only merit words and pictures in response. Only action merits counteraction.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Threats are lies. And liars make them all the time. I will not tolerate censorship just so you can feel comfortable. Find another way to deal with obnoxious people. First of all, learn how to tune out the noise.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I keep on trying...but I have yet to succeed, so I don't think I can help you much.
Interesting twist on the topic! Is it still free speech if one is drawling
the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
The founding fathers were wrong when they thought their descendents wouldn't turn into absolute morons within three centuries.
Yes they were. They thought it would only take about 20.
Time to offend someone
If I were to publish an article in a newspaper claiming that you embezzled millions of dollars with no proof whatsoever
What?! You are going to publish an article in a newspaper claiming I embezzled millions of dollars with no proof whatsoever?!?! How dare you, sir!
If I read your comment as a threat to publish just such an article about me and then sue you, I only need to convince others that you meant it that way regardless of the truth -- even if the truth is you didn't mean it as a threat. Systems that don't uphold the truth as one of the principle values which are sought after in their systems of justice are not just systems. Such systems do not achieve justice, but instead enforce a false opinion. The justice system should be a just system.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
But I don't want more rap music.
Time to offend someone
There is no right to not be offended.
Do they hand out a little book of cliches to kids graduating high school in the US that they are legally obliged to refer to in any internet discussion?
I'm not sure why the same tenuously related bollocks keeps cropping up otherwise.
Take a tap from the cluebat: a credible threat to kill someone can't be explained away as "free speech" or "performance art" just by saying it's rap lyrics.
It's got nothing to do with third parties being offended.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
I'm so sorry to hear that having to actually prove motive is such a burden to catching people. By this rationale, isn't every Internet punk threatening anything committing a direct crime?
...Oh wait, I just remembered all that Sarkeesian stuff. Never mind.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
In this context "draw the line" was meant to be a legal one between free speech and threats. http://dictionary.reference.co...
We are in a dark cave, the wumpus is loose, and the only people with lights are lying religious fanatics whose reason is their sacred writings and whose swords are, more rapidly than we might wish, the actual swords they raise against the unbelievers. Chop. Chop.
(Footnote: I believe in the 2nd amendment not because I can expect to win but rather because I can expect to make it a little more expensive for the eventual winners.)
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
Before that amendment, the Federal government still had power to search and seize, as necessary and proper to enforce provisions of the Constitution and laws enacted under it. For example, the Federal government has the power to regulate bankruptcies across the country (not that I know why that provision is in there, but it is), so the Federal government could do things like search for evidence and seize property when relevant to bankruptcy, or counterfeiting, or copyright infringement, etc.
The Fourth Amendment did not permit anything. Its language is purely negative as far as government actions are concerned. It specifies things the government may not do.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It is? I haven't seen evidence. Since we started seeing such images and videos (often of unclothed women performing various sex acts), we've had violent crime (including rape) declining. During the period of scantily clad female images, the de facto rights of rape victims have increased. "She was asking for it" or "She provoked it by wearing that" are, as far as I can tell, less acceptable than when I was young. The idea that "she owed me" was present before these images, and there are much better protections now for a rape victim in court.
If one of my neighbors screams political slogans outdoors all night, said neighbor would be in violation of city noise ordinances. If he or she does so all day, it may be annoying but it's legal. The display of political signs is allowed 24/7.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
This is entirely stupid. As long as you believe that words can influence the actions of people (and the entire advertising industry is based on this belief) then it follows that the right kind of speech can incite violence - stirring up a group of protesters, telling a drunk husband about a cheating wife, racist propaganda to ensure that soldiers kill the opposition, etc, etc. Of course, it doesn't absolve the violent offenders of guilt. But it can add a guilty party as a contributor.
Clothing is usually not speech (although you could think of examples where it ought to qualify). A person dressing provocatively is no more "inciting rape" than a person without a bulletproof vest is "inciting a bullet wound". There are situations where the respective choices might be risky because of the unfortunate reality that there are people out there prone to violent behavior, but people are not required to choose the less risky option.
The thing is, people act like this rape thing is complicated, but there really isn't any question about it. If someone says they don't want to have sex, regardless of what prior signs they have given to the contrary, you don't have sex with them. Even if you are actively having sex, you still must stop if they ask you to, otherwise it is rape.
It's like the difference between boxing and assault. The only difference between the two is that both parties have provided consent. As soon as consent is revoked, it becomes assault. Is that so difficult?
Are you sure you aren't referencing Bodies: The Exhibition?
Wasn't Tupac shot to death? At least the jail time this guy is doing will get him some street cred.
Some brave and manly ACs around here... As an option to killing someone who punched you because you were rude to him, you could just walk away...
If the person making the threat has all intentions of carrying it out, then the threat is not a lie. Even if it was a lie, if it was made in the hopes of intimidating the person into submission, it should be illegal. For example, if someone were to walk up to you and "If you don't pay me $100 right now, I'll break your kneecaps", you would probably feel threatened (assuming they looked like they might do it and/or had people with them who could back up the threat). You may or may not pay the $100, but you certainly would feel threatened. If the police arrived with these folks still there with you, no pleadings of "It was just free speech" would excuse their threatening remarks. They would still be taken into custody.
There is a difference between obnoxious and threatening. The first, I agree, you need to just deal with or find a way to ignore. It's tempting to try to legislate out obnoxious or offensive people, but we can't if we want to preserve free speech. Full-on threats of bodily violence, though, should never be tolerated. As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at my face. You can't say that you have the "free speech right" to threaten my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Season 2 episode 5 "Mukozuke, the CSI I referred to is actually an FBI special investigator, Beverly Katz. The episode does reference Bodies, and another one from 1986 (the NLM Visible Human Project). The prop is as awesomely disturbing as it is spectacular. Has to be seen to be believed - in fact, take a weekend and watch the whole series.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
To be fair, a decade later they also passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
"And this is why just 5 mod points aren't going to cut it."
Weird - this story?!
And there are over 130 of those spam posts... that's far more than I've seen in a *long* time!
They need to downmod those at the admin level with a script so you can save your legit mod points for good things!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine