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.
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.
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."
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...
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.
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.
There is no right to not be offended.
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.
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.
There have always been limits to the 1st Amendment. At least the Supreme Court has always believed there are limits and contrary to ideologues' rantings it is the Supreme Court's job to define how the Constitution applies in the real world. Here's a Wikipedia page on United States free speech exceptions.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
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.
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.
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."
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!”
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.
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
The balance goes to the free speech rights 100%. No law can exist which can override someone's right to free speech.
Fortunately, only a few lunatics like yourself wish that were the case.
Turns out the rest of society thinks there are quite a few edge cases.
Phoning someone to make death threats is one.
Calling in a fake bomb threat is another.
You may disagree. That's your right. But the rest of us are on board with these restrictions.
Now somewhere between phoning in a death threat, and free speech we have a writing a plausible death threat in the form of a rap lyric... so its quite right for the courts to look at it and decide if really is a death threat threat or not.
Lots of rap lyrics are full of threats. I don't think i've ever seen one that anyone would take seriously though... so far. That doesn't mean this case isn't real.
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.
Reasonable person sounds right to me too. If a reasonable person would interpret something as a threat, that sounds like the right First Amendment criterion. If you can't assume that a jury consists of 12 reasonable people, then the whole Constitution is broken beyond repair and worrying about this little part of it would miss the big picture.
Tupac -
"We bringing drama
fuck you and your mother fucking mama.
We're gonna kill all you mother fuckers.
All of y'all mother fuckers,
fuck you, die slow motherfucker.
My four four (.44 magnum) make sure all your kids don't grow.
You motherfuckers can't be us or see us.
We mother fuckin' Thug Life riders.
West Side till' we die.
Out here in California, nigga
We warned ya'
We'll bomb on you mother fuckers.
We do our job.
You think you the mob, nigga, we the motherfuckin' mob
Ain't nothing but killers
And the real niggas, all you motherfuckers feel us.
Our shit goes triple and four quadruple
You niggas laugh 'cause our staff got guns under they motherfuckin' belts"
Arrest me for quoting rap lyrics...