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?
No, you don't have to know what the law says, only that you're trying to do something bad or with negative consequences for someone else that turns out to be illegal.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ignorance of the law is an excuse?
No. Lack of intent is an excuse, and is part of the law for which ignorance is not an excuse.
Ignorance of the law is an excuse?
No. Lack of intent is an excuse, and is part of the law for which ignorance is not an excuse.
It is trickier than that. The normal legal term is "mens rea", a Latin term for "guilty mind", which is more commonly called "intent". There is a spectrum within the law for things that require intent to be considered criminal all the way through strict liability that do not care about intent.
Many laws, especially older criminal laws, either directly or indirectly address intent. Some laws require the prosecutors show bad intent. Others will modify penalties based on intent. Still others do not take intent into account. Sadly many new laws have been written that should have considered intent, but do not.
For example, selling alcohol to minors has strict liability. It doesn't matter what your intent was. It doesn't matter if you didn't know the law. If cops are doing a sting on the store and someone sells alcohol to a minor, they are liable.
Sadly criminal law is all over the map when it comes to rules about intent. Sometimes two seemingly identical situations can result in one case being dismissed for lack of showing intent, the other can have no intent considered. One currently popular example is officers saying "I feared for my safety and the safety of others", which seems to be the magic incantation to get out of major crimes including murder, where on the other hand "the girl told me she was 18 and even showed me her driver's license with the age" will see no mercy as statutory rape generally has strict liability rules.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
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.
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.
A jury might find that a reasonable argument, but state legislatures have decided that youths need to be protected from sex so much that, like the gp said, it's a 'strict liability' law, even if the minor wants sex so bad they're willing to lie and obtain forgeries to help assist with their lies.
This is why jury nullification is so important - to keep psychopathic legislatures from incarcerating the entire population. A jury has two jobs - to judge the facts and to judge the law. Lawyers and judges try to diminish the second for their own benefit.
On the other hand ... this isn't some trifling matter of stealing trillions of dollars, lying to Congress, or starting wars based on lies - this is consensual sex! So, off to the gallows with him.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
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.