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.
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."
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
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.
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
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!
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.
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!”