Supreme Court set to decide whether internet protected by 1st Amend.

[jeffro97]

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case which could settle if the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech extends to the internet and social media.


The case is Elonis vs. United States, where Anthony Elonis will argue posts he made on Facebook were made in jest and not meant to be taken seriously. Elonis was previously convicted by a federal court for these posts, saying they were of a threatening nature and therefore not protected.


All of the posts in question were viewed by Elonis’ ex-wife who said she felt threatened by them and by Elonis.


One such post reads, according to the Huffington Post, “There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.”


The LA Times also says other posts made by Elonis mentioned killing an FBI agent, as well as massacring a kindergarten class. Elonis testified his
posts were never meant to frighten anyone, and he also said his posts were a spontaneous form of expression similar to rap lyrics.


John Elwood, Elonis’ attorney, told CNN he agreed the posts were cathartic for Elonis. “There’s a reason why all these graphic songs were written when Eminem wrote these things and he hasn’t been prosecuted for a felony for writing these songs which are virtually indistinguishable about his ex-wife,” said Elwood.


Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. is representing the government in the case and disagrees, saying, “A bomb threat that appears to be serious is equally harmful regardless of the speaker’s private state of mind.”


The Justice Department weighed in on the situation saying no matter what the speaker believes about his comments, if someone feels threatened by the comments, those comments are not protected speech.


Some civil liberties groups such as the ACLU, are siding with Elonis, saying “A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speaker’s intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed.”

Arguments from both sides will begin Monday.

http://benswann.com/is-the-internet-protected-by-the-first-amendment-the-supreme-court-will-decide/

[Brian4Liberty]

Not sure why this would be purely an Internet issue. Could he send these messages to his ex wife in a letter? Could he shout them at her from the sidewalk in front of her home?

[phill4paul]

Why the $#@! is there even a consideration?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[osan]

The bit in this that should us all on edge - the bit that demonstrates with some force that America is gone 'round the bend - is the fact that this question came up in the first place. One can but imagine the sophistry on both sides that shall devolve upon the courtroom of the IX.

It's over. The only way back is to take back, and that isn't going to happen by virtue of strong words and reason. Wide-area civil disobedience is the least measure.

[osan]

Why the $#@! is there even a consideration?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Aye, make no law - but it does NOT say "prosecutors shall make no false application of extant law whose effective result is to violate the dictates of this Amendment."

Constitution == hopelessly weak and insufficient document in a land of thieves. America is no land of saints.

[Ronin Truth]

Only the Internet in the USA is.

[BUSHLIED]

i don't see this case that broadly.

Here is a link to oral argument: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_983

The question is: Does a conviction of threatening another person under 18 U. S. C. §875(c) require proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten?

It just so happened that Elonis's statements were made on Facebook over the Internet. As I understand it, I can't make threats to anyone if I have the subjective intent or means to carry out the threats, no matter where I make them (i.e. letter, phone, text, or other media).

Of course, I am not sure how I personally feel about making threats a crime punishable by jail time. But this case tries to get at what is necessary to prove in the court to get a conviction of this statute.

[Schifference]

Hey Joe, "where are you going?"

[Schifference]

I have a dead beat tenant I am trying to get evicted. They have not paid me one penny for Nov, Dec, or Jan. They live on first floor of a two family. Sounds like last night the police got called to the residence. The second floor tenant says she has video of the entire incident. The first floor guy threatened to slit the throats of the second floor tenants. Police arrested the guy for Breach of Peace 2 and Threatening 2 on 20k bond. I just called inquiring and somehow he posted bail and is out.

At the time the first floor tenant said she also had video alleging something. When asked to produce it she said, "I don't trust the police. I got a ticket one time and the police followed me home in a helicopter." This lady called me last week saying she called 3x regarding a leaking toilet and my floor was ready to collapse. When I got there the apartment was 80* the bathroom was full of humidity. The water was dripping off the window. The toilet had condensation all over the bowl and tank. I explained to the guy that I was only called once, the floor is not caving in, and that I had told the wife previously that they need to open the window and let the humidity out of the bathroom. Told him if it was 95* and he filled a big glass with ice and water and put in on the table and came back in a half hour there would be water all over the table and that would not indicate that the glass was leaking.

God I hope I get rid of these tenants!

[otherone]

The Justice Department weighed in on the situation saying no matter what the speaker believes about his comments, if someone feels threatened by the comments, those comments are not protected speech.

I feel threatened by everything the Justice Department says.

[osan]

I feel threatened by everything the Justice Department says.

Yes, but you don't count.

Next.

[TheTexan]

Last time I checked, you can't 'speak' over the internet. Unless its skype or something. I guess youtube counts, its protected.

Someone needs to tell youtube that its protected by the amendment, and they have to stop putting ads over my miley cyrus videos.

[phill4paul]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has thrown out the conviction of a Pennsylvania man accused of making threats on Facebook.

The justices ruled Monday that it was not enough for prosecutors to show that the comments of Anthony Elonis would make a reasonable person feel threatened.

Elonis claimed the government had no right to prosecute him if he didn't actually intend his comments to be threatening to others. But the Obama administration said that the test is whether the comments would strike fear in a reasonable person.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-01-10-30-43

[tod evans]

In order to take the offensive AUSA to court in any capacity he'll need to obtain permission to sue...

Rope is quicker, cheaper and far more effective.

And this is why every member of the "Just-Us" department must have their name, address and personal affiliations accessible to the public over whom they rule...... Even peasants knew where the King resided.....