Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Overturns Conviction For Man Who Posted 'Threatening' Messages On Facebook
schwit1 sends news that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 in favor of Anthony Elonis, a man who wrote a series of angry messages on Facebook. The posts included quotes from rap lyrics containing "violent imagery," and were directed at Elonis's wife, his co-workers, law enforcement, and a kindergarten class. Elonis was charged and convicted under a federal statute that outlaws "any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another." The jury in his case was told the standard for judging such a threat was whether a "reasonable person" would interpret it as such. According to the Court's ruling (PDF), that standard was not enough to convict him. They call it "a standard feature of civil liability in tort law inconsistent with the conventional criminal conduct requirement of 'awareness of some wrongdoing.'" The case is notable for being the first Supreme Court ruling about free speech on social media, but the ruling itself was quite narrow.
Good. I should be able to offend you as much as I like, provided you're willing to stick around and listen.
It's often times difficult to differentiate between rantings of someone blowing off steam and real threats. But taking a zero tolerance approach is not the right way to do it. One needs to engage their brain when evaluating what really is a threat and what isn't. I know it's difficult for people to do but it's the only way to keep from stomping on the liberty of the people.
Ignorance of the law is an excuse?
>the conventional criminal conduct requirement of 'awareness of some wrongdoing.'
One thing that bugs me about these is that people seem to get the unconscious takeaway that the guy gets off scott free. That he walks away without consequence for his words. And they think to themselves (pretty reasonably) "that's unacceptable!" and even "we need to make the law more interpretable and arbitrary!"
But keep in mind that (like other behavior that isn't OMG FORBIDDEN BY FEDERAL LAW) pissing off employers, peers, friends/enemies, etc. will most certainly indeed have consequences. Society has it's own control effects without having to indulge (and fund) the sUe-S-A hype.
"The Supreme Court doesn't accept my legal genius, therefore the Supreme Court is wrong, and I remain the greatest constitutional expert EVERRR!!!!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That said, after reading what this moron actually posted on Facebook, I am glad he spent his time in prison, even if the Judge gave the jury 'poor' instructions.
He certainly sounds like the kind of angry idiot that was (and probably still is) dangerous.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Okay, so this one had me scratching my head, but I think after reading this analysis, I might have a handle on it:
-This is not a First Amendment issue, but an issue of interpreting a federal statute making threats illegal.
-The issue is not whether a reasonable person would have interpreted what he said as a serious threat.
-The issue is the author's intent, and it matters what the author's intent is, but it's not clear based on the SCOTUS ruling what sort of intent is required to prosecute (actual intent to threaten vs. recklessness--not caring if it was taken as threatening) .
Basically, the long-and-short of it appears to be that SCOTUS just made this shit a hell of a lot more confusing.
Also notable: in 1969 the Supreme Court ruled in Watts v. United States that the following was protected speech:
They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.
Did the also fail you by giving Bush the 2000 election, or was that OK in your book?
By every objective measure, Gore lost. What the SCOTUS really decided on a 5 to 4 vote was that you couldn't alter the counting procedure AFTER the ballots where cast, which made the previous count (which Gore lost) the FINAL count. (And making all this hanging chad nonsense go away.) Scary actually that 4 judges actually thought it was OK to change the counting rules after the ballots where cast, but hey...
You can argue that the ACTUAL vote was different than the count, but everybody knew what the counting process was before the election so you play the game by the rules set out in advance. Further, NOBODY knows what the *real* count was or wasn't so you can argue anything you want to believe, but Gore lost, lost the recount, lost in court, lost the election, it's history now.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Stop believing what people tell you about boogeymen being around every corner, it's simply not true! I don't care what you post on Facebook, words are not dangerous. Never have been, never will be, but seems very difficult for simple people. Simple people that seem to fear words so much at any rate (I'm looking specifically at Universities and Politicians who specialize in fear mongering with fabricated and false information mostly).
Block the poster, problem solved. If they really stalk you, call the police. A person stalking you is probably illegal, and the person should be prosecuted if they break the law.
If a person calls me a name, I first wonder if I deserved the ad hominem. If not, I have actions I can take to not see their words. Simply put, I have not logged in to Facebook for at least 3 years. Cancel your account.
Sure, there are exceptions to the rule.. but they are so rare it's not worth asking about.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Those damn elitist kindergarteners had it comin'.
Some of us didn't have the luxury of going to school and learning our colors, we had jobs. How dare they sneer at me just because they've never heard of snyellow.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
There are totally laws against certain communication. As a first, and obvious thing, we want laws against bomb threats, whether hoaxes or not. We allow laws against untrue communications, especially as people enter into contracts. We allow laws against communications used to further illegal activities, such as to coordinate a heist.
Fundamentally, not all communications are speech, because some communications have explicit direct non-speech results. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't speech. It's not designed to participate in a marketplace of the ideas and win. It's a communication designed to shut down rational conversation and begin emergency evacuations.
Now, these are fuzzy lines Planning a heist movie script is perfectly protected. So the government has to prove that it was an actual heist planning.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Still trying to see how not striking down Obamacare because it includes a tax (penalty) for not having healthcare as unconstitutional is a failure. Basically you are ranting that SCOTUS didn't strike down a tax law passed by the group that can create taxes was unconstitutional because it created a tax...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
...last month. He is indeed a charmer.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/arti...
The gist of this is that now statement in and of themselves cannot be actionable until it can be proven that the mind of the person making the threat actually intends harm. The defendant in this case, Anthony Elonis, argued that he was a rapper and his statements could not be taken in context (i.e. "Fold up your PFA (protection order) and put it in your pocket Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?" and "I've got enough explosives to take care of the State Police and the Sheriff 's Department.")
Internet trolls rejoice. Now anything can be said, no limits to speech, no consequences as long as it can be proven that you don't mean harm. If in doubt, just sign all threats with JK (Just Kidding) or RL (Rap Lyric). People have been kicked off flights for jokes in poor taste (bombs, threatening airline employees...) but now the intent of the threat has to be proven. The internet has always had a large troll population. Now they can come out of the shadows, raise their middle finger, grin, and make very specific threats with impunity. If caught they can laugh and say JK/RL.
This leaves a most unclear situation where it becomes far more difficult to determine at what point does a statement become abuse and actionable? This is likely to spawn enough confusion about this ruling (7-2 no less) that more cases will be heard and with opposing rulings and head back to the USC for further clarification.
Or even before the "requesting ID". Let's say you're in a bar (legal: 21 in the USA, legal 18-19 in Canada). By law, persons under the age of majority should never be given entry to the premises. Yet somebody who goes home with somebody from said bar and finds they're under-age by a year or even a few months may find himself/herself facing a serious charge and/or criminal record.
Now if intent and situation were taken into place, then one should consider that one has a reasonable expectation that those you encounter at a law-abiding facility would be of age (and/or that the facility would have some liability for persons that weren't). However, I believe that this argument has been raised before and failed.
Indeed. I've seen my fair share of trolls who danced on the border of legality also. If we bust every excessively obnoxious troll our jails would be full (if they are not already).
We should probably just learn to grow a thick skin and ignore eNuts (unless they talk of weapons, matches, etc.)
It's something that irks me about the anti-bullying campaigns. I hate to say it, but being bullied is part of growing up. Life is inherently full of jerks and sociopaths; if you don't learn how to deal with them as a child, then your adult life will be more difficult.
I've dealt with idiots at work also that use similar tactics. It's not as blatant, but essentially bullying techniques packaged in a work-acceptable fashion. Paraphrased example: "If you don't go along with our [devious or illogical] plan, I have ways to get you fired and you won't know what hit you. You'll get a pink-slip, a box to pack your ugly desk trinkets, and a finger pointing to the exit door".
I was bullied as a kid and I certainly didn't like it one bit, but I am a stronger person for it. The earlier you learn to face difficult people, the better.
The best lessons tend to be the hardest lessons.
Table-ized A.I.
The summary claims that "the first Supreme Court ruling about free speech on social media", but SCOTUS has not only not ruled on free speech here they specifically state that the First Amendment has nothing to do with their decision. To wit: "Given the disposition here, it is unnecessary to consider any First Amendment issues".
This is actually a due process ruling, on whether the jury instructions were sufficient for a criminal case vs. a civil case.
In addition, the conviction has not been overturned. The case has been reversed and remanded back to the lower court to retry with correct jury instruction, but the defendant is not free yet.
Fundamentally, not all communications are speech, because some communications have explicit direct non-speech results.
According to the Supreme Court, not all communications are PROTECTED speech. (They're still speech. They just don't enjoy the First Amendment protections because they're ALSO parts of crimes for which one can be punished - and in some cases (such as threats or criminal conspiracy) the speech is all it takes to commit or be a participant in the crime.)
Because speech is explicitly mentioned as protected in the First Amendment (and anti-government speech is also specifically a necessary part of another protected right - petitioning the government for redress of grievances), the court sets a very high standard for laws making some kind of speech a crime: Such laws may be overturned just because they have "a chilling effect" on protected speech, by making people avoid such protected speech out of concern that it might be prosecuted.
Regardless, Congress doesn't get to pass laws that preemptively muzzle people or block publication. They just get to pass laws to punish them AFTER they speak (or print, ...) some explicitly illegal content.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't speech.
Funny you should mention that. The phrase "FALSELY shouting fire in a crowded theatre" originated in a WWI Supreme Court decision declaring that distributing anti-draft leaflets to people of draft age was not protected speech.
My favorite approach to "Fire in a Crowded Theatre" was Abbie Hoffman's (when being interviewed in a crowded theatre):
Interviewer: "But surely you don't advocate shouting fire in a crowded theatre?"
Abbie: "FIRE!"
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The real outcome should be that people realize that words are just words, and opinions are only opinions. The amount of criminal acts on Facebook can probably be counted on a few fingers. Even the kid posting that he hated and wanted to kill Obama is just a kid with an opinion. People say dumb things in anger, it's how people react to that anger which shapes a person.
The "illegal" stuff on the internet is already illegal. You can't buy and/or sell drugs, you can't hire a hitman, you can't sell secret information for money, you can't traffic illegal goods including humans, etc.. etc.. All of those things are illegal, and none of them require the Internet to accomplish.
That someone dislikes an opinion.. not illegal. Even if they call you names and yell at you for having a different opinion, it is not illegal.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state a person must be in while committing a crime for it to be intentional.
Almost. Literally it means "guilty mind." But you only mention intent, and there are levels of "guilty mindedness" besides "intent." Such things include:
Negligently: "A reasonable person should know not to do this because of the potential for harm."
Recklessly: "The defendant knew this would likely result in harm but did it anyway."
Knowingly: "The defendant knew this would almost certainly result in harm and did it anyway."
Intentionally (or purposefully): "The defendant wanted harm to happen, and so did this."
This determines how culpable a person is for a crime. And something done accidentally has no mens rea, no guilty mind, and therefore committed no crime. Hence, the "mens rea requirement" for a given law is the definition of how culpable a person must be in order to be found guilty.
It can refer to a general intent to break the law or a specific, premeditated plan to commit a particular offense.
Also not quite. It's not your state of mind with regards to the law. It's your state of mind with regards to the thing the law proscribes.
Lots of people have no idea what the actual sexual assault laws are in their state. They're wildly different state to state. For instance, in Arizona you can be convicted of rape for having sex with someone who you know is or should have known is too drunk to provide meaningful consent, even when the intoxication is self-administered. I bet a lot of people go to SXSW or something and hook up with drunk people with no idea they've opened themselves up to prosecution for rape. The prosecutor will not have to prove that they intended to break the law, or even knew what the law was. Only that they knew or should have known their sex partner was too drunk to consent and did it anyway. Essentially, "proceeded with a negligent or reckless attitude towards consent."
It's about your state of mind with regards to the proscribed act (sex with someone unable to provide meaningful consent because drunk), not your state of mind with regards to "violation of chapter 13-1404 of the state of Arizona penal code." This is what we mean by "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.