Supreme Court Overturns Conviction For Man Who Posted 'Threatening' Messages On Facebook 144
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.
InB4Twitter (Score:2, Funny)
Good. I should be able to offend you as much as I like, provided you're willing to stick around and listen.
Re:InB4Twitter (Score:5, Funny)
What? Offtopic? Did the mods miss TFS or TFA? This is about a guy being offensive.
"Hi, I’m Tone Elonis.
Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife? . . . It’s one of the only sentences that I’m not allowed to say. . . . Now it was okay for me to say it right then because I was just telling you that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife. . . . Um, but what’s interesting is that it’s very illegal to say I really, really think someone out there should kill my wife. . . . But not illegal to say with a mortar launcher. Because that’s its own sentence. . . . I also found out that it’s incredibly illegal, extremely illegal to go on Facebook and say something like the best place to fire a mortar launcher at her house would be from the cornfield behind it because of easy access to a getaway road and you’d have a clear line of sight through the sun room. . . . Yet even more illegal to show an illustrated diagram. [diagram of the house]. . . ." Id., at 333.
Shit, this guy could practically be a Slashdot commenter.
Re: (Score:2)
Editors don't tend to comment all that much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:InB4Twitter (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't about being "offensive." It was about being threatening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I hate to admit it but it almost resembles some of the posts I have made here while under the influence. Hell, it resembles some of my long diatribes that I make when I am sober. No, I have no idea how my karma is still in the excellent category.
Good ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not at all, what we need to do is protect everybody from the threat of harm by confining them in a mental health ward until they admit they are dangerous and need to be kept confined.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not at all, what we need to do is protect everybody from the threat of harm by confining them in a mental health ward until they admit they are dangerous and need to be kept confined.
Thank you Joseph Heller [wikipedia.org] (for all you youngsters out there)
Re:Good ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
You should tell that to the police in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, in the vast majority of cases, this is exactly what happens... cop engages brain, realizes that the situation either either something dumb, mistaken, or impossible to prosecute (and is otherwise not a crime), says as much to the complainant, and moves on. Or, in the case of what may be a crime but turns out to not be, same-same, with maybe a stern talking-to of the 'offender' that maybe he should not be so dumb in the future, or at least don't make the activity appear so damned suspicious. ...an
Re:Good ruling (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, in the vast majority of cases, this is exactly what happens... cop engages brain, realizes that the situation either either something dumb, mistaken, or impossible to prosecute (and is otherwise not a crime), says as much to the complainant, and moves on. Or, in the case of what may be a crime but turns out to not be, same-same, with maybe a stern talking-to of the 'offender' that maybe he should not be so dumb in the future, or at least don't make the activity appear so damned suspicious. ...and then there's the small minority of police officers who are either overeager newbies, had a really bad day, decides he doesn't like the guy, didn't get laid the night before, a closet sociopath, or suchlike.
About the same sample size as humanity at large, really, but with one subtle-yet-important distinction: force.
Having studied the problems with law enforcement for years I can say confidently that in most departments what you've said is true. The real problem is that when that one guy really screws up the reflexive response from everybody in his department (and the DA's office) is to circle the wagons and protect the idiot cop. I've talked about it here before but look up the case of David Bisard in Indianapolis as a fine example where there are no gray areas. He got drunk on duty and ran over a motorcyclist who was stopped at a stop light, killing the cyclist and gravely injuring two others. The FOP paid for his defense and 19 cops who showed up acted as if they couldn't tell that a guy who would later test at .20% BAC (you read that correctly) had been drinking.
That's the real problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't a subtle distinction, it's a massive one. The police are trained to and it is their job to make these decisions correctly.
In all of the highly-publicized recent cases they did not is remarkable - in spite of many times that number of correct judgements by other officers - because they made poor judgements in egregious ways, escalated their behavior out-of-control, and in some cases, planted exculpatory evidence.
Re:Good ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet trolls and other hyperbolic posters have been around as long as the Internet was around. I remember when I first started posting one Usenet in the very early 1990s (1990-91 or so), that there were many flamewars that ended with everything from legal threats to, at least in one case, a poster threatening to show up at another poster's house and beat him senseless, and in those days many of us actually had our home addresses in our bloody sigs! I don't think anyone ever really took it seriously, even when the poster making the threats was a net kook (and ye olden days there were some legendary kooks, particularly in places like talk.origins). People, particularly when shrouded in anonymity, behave in ways that they would never dream of behaving in person, which to my mind is a key to the notion that most of even the vilest trolls are really just assholes letting off steam in public forums.
I'm not saying that all conduct on the Internet should be protected, but I think we have to accept that anonymity and instant communications from any corner of the globe creates a somewhat different situation. I've personally been threatened with bodily harm a couple of times in the over a quarter of a century I've been on the Internet, and while I can't say it didn't effect me, I suppressed any desire to panic and realized that the assholes in question were, well, just assholes, and the odds were pretty damned low that I was ever in danger.
Re:Good ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. I was surfing the BBSs and Usenet back in the 80's and I remember well the flamewars to which you refer.
What needs to be drawn from this ruling is that you have to exercise discretion when you are dealing with online postings. You have to acknowledge that there is a tremendous gray area. And you can't just say anything that even remotely looks like a threat is criminal. You can't treat the world as black-or-white. You have to use your brain and evaluate each case rationally. It's more work and it's difficult but that's what it takes to ensure liberty.
I'd take this further (Score:2, Interesting)
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 in
Re: (Score:2)
But! But! I'm OFFENDED by that person exercising their first amendment right to free speech!!!!1!11!11!one!!1!eleven!!!!
/sarcasm
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're right that we need to grow a thicker skin and I'm one of those that giggles at any attempt to insult me. Regardless, I think we need to start making the internet a cleaner place for everybody. After all most of us just want to use the internet to play, learn and work. Trolls and haters are able to take too much space online and that's where it becomes a problem. People need to act civilized online the same way they do at school or work.
I think this case is very different than the typical anon
Re: (Score:3)
That's just censorship by whoever gets to define "clean".
No, because "online" isn't necessarily school or work, so there's no bureaucracy or autocracy to define "civilized" conduct.
Let's consider a possible ex
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect any /. user to use a certain level of common sense.
That's just censorship by whoever gets to define "clean".
Threats bring nothing to the table. Clean was the wrong word. No reason for threats to be allowed anywhere when the intentions are to hurt someone (meant or not) or to silence their speech.
Let's consider a possible example: "Goddamnit, I'm going to kill that son of a bitch; he broke the build 3 times this week". Nope, no action required.
Once again, common sense should be used but I would honestly not use that kind of language towards a colleague unless outside the work settings. Poor interpretation by another colleague could easily make it a trip to HR. Trust me, I know.
A law which has an intended effect of something else but an unintended effect of deterring dumb jokes may be unconstitutional
You could say that
Re:Good ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
I've personally been threatened with bodily harm a couple of times in the over a quarter of a century I've been on the Internet, and while I can't say it didn't effect me, I suppressed any desire to panic and realized that the assholes in question were, well, just assholes, and the odds were pretty damned low that I was ever in danger.
Were you threatened repeatedly over a year or so by someone you lived with for 7 years and had current knowledge of where you live and all your daily habits? Or were you threatened in 733t speak by "IRCHandle151" in a post because you like VI or whatever? If its the latter I can understand why you thought the odds are pretty low of the threat being carried out.
Re:Good ruling [Bullying Rant] (Score:2, Insightful)
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 chi
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when I first started posting one Usenet in the very early 1990s (1990-91 or so), that there were many flamewars that ended with everything from legal threats to, at least in one case, a poster threatening to show up at another poster's house and beat him senseless
Yes, but in the good old days basically everyone was in via an university and if things really got out of hand, one would contact the respective postmaster@foo.bar, who would walk over and have a stern talk with the offender. A homogeneous user group, peer pressure, and the threat of cancled usenet access (without x other IP providers waiting for you) work wonders.
Those good old days are gone.
Re: (Score:2)
in those days many of us actually had our home addresses in our bloody sigs!
Didn't matter. Well, not a lot. I was tracked to a specific computer in a specific lab more than once (all in good fun). There were so fewcomputers on the Internet then that it wasn't hard to find out who owned that IP, and they were almost all statically assigned, so you could then track it down to a lab, if you talked to the right person with the right questions.
Anonymity on the Internet was fake, then real, now is fake again. I've always used my real name and such, and it's never been a problem. Th
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind they didn't decide the case, they just threw it back for a retrial. So it may still turn out what he did was illegal under current laws. Maybe hold off the champaign for a bit.
Re:Good ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a retrial, yet. They remanded it back to the 3rd circuit to figure out what to do with the guy.
And I think the court screwed up. I agree with Justice Alito (I just finished reading the court opinion [supremecourt.gov]). They sent it back to the 3rd circuit but didn't give them a clear guide on what to do.
The issue is this:
1) "True threats" are not constitutionally protected. They never have been, never will be. "I can say whatever I want" ends when a reasonable person hearing what you say becomes afraid for their safety. And rhyming doesn't make it okay. It will never be protected to call up a school and say "roses are red, violets are blue, you're dead and all the kiddies are too." That's going to justifiably freak a lot of people out. This is not the same thing as merely being offended. I mean actually threatened.
2) Elonis was convicted on four out of five counts of violating 18 U. S. C. 875(c), which makes it a federal crime to transmit in interstate commerce "any communication containing any threat . . . to injure the person of another."
3) The problem is there's no mens rea requirement in that. The lower courts instructed the jury that mere negligence is enough. "He should have known people would be threatened by this."
4) Elonis argued that criminal law very rarely works that way. Negligence is a fine standard in civil and tort law. But to actually punish somebody for crime, they need to have knowledge that what they were doing was wrong. "Should have known better" isn't good enough. Elonis argues that they need to establish that he intended to threaten. (Not intended to carry out the threat. Intended to threaten.)
5) Elonis is right in that. He got a bum deal on the negligence standard. That isn't good enough. But there's another standard between "negligence" and "intent" and that's "reckless." Recklessness is a reasonable standard by which to merit criminal punishment. That would be "knew it would probably make people afraid for their lives and did it anyway." Is that a reasonable standard for mens rea for this law?
6) The majority decision didn't address recklessness. They just said "it wasn't really argued by either side and the lower courts didn't rule on recklessness." However, that's...wrong. Both sides did bring it up in oral arguments, Elonis obviously saying "no, there has to be intent" and the state saying "who cares, negligence is enough." They could have decided they didn't have enough information to answer that question and gone back to the parties for further briefing and argument. But they just said "nope, not saying."
7) So where does that leave the lower courts, and users of social media? What IS the standard whereby one may be convicted of threatening others? All the Supremes will say is "not negligence." But now we don't know if the standard is actually recklessness or intent. Thanks a lot guys!
As an aside...Dear Congress: Please always write the mens rea requirements into each law so the courts know what standard to apply and don't leave them to guess. Thanks! xoxo, monkeykins.
So now the 3rd Circuit will figure out what to do with him. I don't know what that will be. His conviction under the negligence standard is overturned. I think the only way to reapply a recklessness standard would be with a new trial. The problem was the jury instructions, so you need a new jury. I don't think there's a double jeopardy issue, because this would essentially be a mistrial, stemming from action instigated by the defendant. But then the question is, "what should the jury instructions be this time?" Don't know!
My guess would be "recklessness," and it could kind of go either way.
He clearly knew lots of people were taking the things he was saying in the way he was saying them seriously. He made threats against his coworkers and his boss fired him. He made threats against his wife and she found them credible enough to get a restraining order
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! You may also like this comment [slashdot.org] where I talk more about the issue of defining true threats.
One thing in the comment to which you responded I believe is unclear.
"True threats" are not constitutionally protected. They never have been, never will be. "I can say whatever I want" ends when a reasonable person hearing what you say becomes afraid for their safety.
I'm mixing a general principle ("in society we don't want people to be able to make people legitimately fear for their lives") with a specific legal term "true threat," and it may seem like I was defining it, and I didn't mean to.
And I didn't quite get into it specifically in the post I just linked. But a "true threat" is not clearly defined a
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless, it is nice to see a court acknowledge the requirement to show criminal intent for a change.
Re: (Score:2)
But why is the threat dealt with differently than one done in person? I'm not saying that I agree with death threats being a good reason to put someone away but there should be equal liability in person or online.
Whether the punishment for a death threat is too harsh is a different story. IMHO death threats should simply be dealt with differently. After all the person is obviously enraged and aren't thinking straight. A simple one on one with a social worker can yield positive results instead of an expensi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Due to the context. The context is pretty clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Because threats of violence are easier to consummate from three feet away than from 1000 miles away?
Seriously, can you actually see an imminent threat being meaningful when the threatener and threatenee are separated by a continent? Or even a State (well, maybe not one of those tiny States in New England, but a real State...)?
Re: (Score:2)
This comment section was for the article right? To be ex-husband threatens to be ex-wife. Is that not close enough?
Seriously, can you actually see an imminent threat being meaningful when the threatener and threatenee are separated by a continent?
And how do you know where they live? Allowing threats online bring nothing good to anybody online. It doesn't help with learning, playing or working.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think in general it's safer to use language that is clearly non-actionable, like wishing a volcano erupting near someone, or that karma come back and bite them. But when the language is an actionable plan, then even if it's not a plan that's intended to be followed, it can carry significant legal consequences. Listing specific dates, times, and tools to be used, would paint a picture of a realistic plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that zero tolerance is a bad idea, but what they've struck down is the "reasonable person" standard in any kind of criminal case. It has nothing to do with zero tolerance.
IANAL, but I suspect the issue is that to convict someone for a serious crime you generally have to show "mens rea" ("guilty mind") -- that the defendant had the intent of committing the crime in question. If so the ruling may be reasonable, but not for the reasons you suggest. If I'm right, what SCOTUS is saying is that the jury
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If they are targeted at someone that's when it's a problem. "I'm going to kill Suzy" means nothing if I yell it in a room where there's no Suzy but if I point at Liza while I say it all of a sudden it has a different meaning even if her name isn't Suzy..
If I have an altercation with someone and then I post lyrics that suggest something violent, don't you think that's an issue? What if I post those lyrics on that person's wall? Does that constitute an issue? Common sense can be used to determine if that pos
Re: (Score:2)
The world is not black and white. Stop trying to treat it as such.
There is a difference between saying something without any intention to follow through (as many people are wont to do) and a real, legitimate threat. It is difficult to tell the difference, even if you actually stop the knee jerk reaction and start actually thinking.
I, for example, quote some awful song lyrics when I'm in a foul mood. It's a very effective way for me to vent without actually doing any harm to anyone. And the last time I g
Re: (Score:2)
You're basically confirming what I'm suggesting. If you are in a foul enough mood to say/post violent wording (with or without intentions) you may truly be in need of help which was the point I was trying to make. Ignoring it certainly won't help anybody especially not the person hurting.
There's a saying in French (not sure if it translates) that goes like this: "Twist your tongue 7 times before speaking". This expression means think of what you say before you say it. There are consequences to actions. Reme
Uhh, no! (Score:2)
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 po
damn meddling kids! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean... (Score:2)
Ignorance of the law is an excuse?
>the conventional criminal conduct requirement of 'awareness of some wrongdoing.'
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Would that be an actual case of entrapment, because you demonstrated that you were attempting to observe the laws to the best of your ability and to the best of the ability a reasonable person could reasonably be expected to have?
Re: (Score:2)
Just to clarify, I'm assuming in that scenario that the girl showed a license, did it on camera, with audio, and the (presumably fake) license is admitted as evidence, and it's a convincing fake. Just to make it clear, I'm assuming the case in which the person did the absolute best someone could be expected to do. He said/she said isn't going to cut it, clearly--but if you *did* have solid, incontrovertible evidence?
Re: (Score:1)
Only if the girl was actually a police officer.
Re: (Score:2)
The scenario explicitly included an ID check.
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be an actual case of entrapment, because you demonstrated that you were attempting to observe the laws to the best of your ability and to the best of the ability a reasonable person could reasonably be expected to have?
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Bars (Score:1)
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 e
Re: (Score:2)
Entrapment is only when the government does it to you. Unless the girl's working on behalf of the government, no.
Re: (Score:2)
You're entirely right. It was a poor choice of wording, but I don't have an edit button.
Re: (Score:2)
You...you just admitted to making an innocent mistake. On the Internet. And were civil about it.
I'm in awe.
Are you Jesus?
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, though. That's because lawmakers who seldom understand the technology jump to try to pass new laws for new problems. And they end up passing really badly written laws.
In a lot of cases, they could have used existing laws. And in other cases, they just pass overbroad laws because "teh interwebs" are scary.
Changing the threshold for criminal liability to the laughable levels used for civil liability is a terrible mistake.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Depends on the state. Some states that's a valid excuse depending on the age of the minor. For instance, Arizona 13-1407 Section B: [azleg.gov]
B. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to sections 13-1404 and 13-1405 in which the victim's lack of consent is based on incapacity to consent because the victim was fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age if at the time the defendant engaged in the conduct constituting the offense the defendant did not know and could not reasonably have known the age of the victim.
Sections 1404 and 1405 are the ones defining sexual abuse/assault of a minor.
This one of the problems with arguing about rape laws on the internet. Every state is different, and states have wildly different laws. I'd say it comes up most often when talking about consent while drunk. People will argue that having sex with a drunk person who later claims rape is bullshit, because
Re: (Score:2)
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...
"...magic"? No. The law has a very clear reason for exempting someone who kills in the name of self defense and/or defense of others - otherwise you'd need a cop posted at a coverage of something like one for every 10,000 square feet of jurisdiction (...which is not very practical in rural areas, yanno). It boils down to this: Everyone has the right to defend him/herself against deadly threat with whatever force is necessary to neutralize said threat. It works partly as a deterrent (at least in rural areas)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
depends how good your lawyer is.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorance of the law is an excuse?
>the conventional criminal conduct requirement of 'awareness of some wrongdoing.'
I interpreted the summary's description to mean that the law as-written seems to imply, "preponderance of the evidence," which is how civil law findings can be determined, as opposed to require a significantly higher burden of proof in the form of, "beyond a reasonable doubt," that criminal proceedings require. The defendant wasn't quoting those on a terrorist list or writing his own content, he was quoting or paraphrasing a work that is considered art, without there being any specific or credible intent t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of intent to do something is an excuse; intending to do something not realizing it is a crime is not. Therefore, posting something that you intend to be quotes of Eminem is different from the same words when you intend them as a threat.
At least, as far as I can tell. IANAL.
$commentSubject (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. I agree that we should rely more on societal norms moderating peoples' actions rather than using the law for absolutely every last little instance. He got fired from his place of employment after posting a staged photo of him holding a knife to a co-workers throat.
That said, when you cross into actual, physical violence, or direct threats, the law can and should come down on you. One of his posts in question was actually talking about the difference between direct threats and speaking in a meta sense a
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I agree that we should rely more on societal norms moderating peoples' actions rather than using the law for absolutely every last little instance. He got fired from his place of employment after posting a staged photo of him holding a knife to a co-workers throat.
That said, when you cross into actual, physical violence, or direct threats, the law can and should come down on you. One of his posts in question was actually talking about the difference between direct threats and speaking in a meta sense about threats. I've quoted that above in another post.
The problem with societal norms is that the norm is the dictate of whoever is in power at the time. There have been a lot of societies where what we would consider backwards and barbaric are the societal norm, hell even 50 years ago it was considered a societal norm to beat your wife or force black people to sit at the back of the bus.
"Societal norm" is simply a nice way of saying "tyranny of the majority". The problem is, people who are different dont like tyranny. As much as many hate to admit it, enfo
Re: (Score:2)
As much as many hate to admit it, enforcement of societal norm creates the kind of monsters that do school shootings.
How? There are always going to be deranged people, no mater what.
Re: (Score:2)
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!"
Well, he is not getting away with it (not yet). It was decided that the judge gave wrong instructions to the jury. The wrong instruction was that the jury had to decide whether a reasonable person would think of his posts as threats. The correct instruction would have to be that the man himself knew that what he posted would be taken as threats.
So it's going back to court. I personally believe and hope that he will be found guilty with the correct jury instruction as well.
Too late for him (Score:3)
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.
Re:Too late for him (Score:4, Interesting)
When his wife secured a Protection From Abuse order by a state judge, Elonis went on Facebook to declare, “Fold up your PFA and put it in your pocket. Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?”
What a charming man.
Then there's his domestic violence arrest... (Score:2)
http://rhrealitycheck.org/arti... [rhrealitycheck.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So, are they going to pay the guy [cnn.com] for his time?
That, and if you're found to have been wrongfully convicted, the prosecutors/plaintiffs should be put on trial as an automatic action. Might make the system a bit fairer.
Re: (Score:2)
They're going to go back to the lower court and (most likely) redo the trial with proper instructions to the jury. From what I know about the case, he'll probably be found guilty again as he was knowingly threatening to kill his ex. Might even get a longer sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am glad because I think his wife would very likely be DEAD if this angry idiot had not been sent to prison.
I think his wife's continued life is in fact an improvement of the situation.
I also think that this guy will most likely be better off now - with a conviction that was overturned by SCOTUS - and enough time for him realize that maybe keeping his dumb mouth shut would benefit him than he would have been if he had been convicted of another act
Re: (Score:2)
If he has a good lawyer, they will probably settle, agreeing to have his record wiped clean and drop all charges in exchange for him not suing for money.
Trials are expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
The man in question had actually finished serving his sentence of 44 months (less than 4 years) and been released from prison.
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.
This also isn't a win for him, yet... It's getting remanded back to the appeals court (and possibly, eventually back to the trial court), and so his fight isn't over. On retrial, a jury could still convict him by finding that he actually did intend to threaten his ex when he sent her a facebook post saying that her restraining order wouldn't protect her from a bullet, rather than just that a reasonable person would interpret it to be a threat.
Legal analysis (Score:3)
Okay, so this one had me scratching my head, but I think after reading this analysis [popehat.com], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I read the court's decisions and posted my analysis in another comment. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Basically, the long-and-short of it appears to be that SCOTUS just made this shit a hell of a lot more confusing.
Not at all.
Courts sometimes get things wrong, and then SCOTUS steps in and tells them that they got it wrong. The courts then have to look at the matter again. They are supposed to do it right the next time. SCOTUS is not supposed to tell them how to do it right. They are not little children that need hand holding. They are assumed to get it right on their own most of the time.
A victory for internet trolls (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's not the case at all. You've never had to show intent to carry out the act. This was about the state of mind with regards to making the threat.
Does the government have to show that you:
1) Intended to threaten? (what Elonis argued it should be)
2) Threatened recklessly? (what it probably is)
3) Threatened negligently? (what the judge in Elonis' case instructed the jury to decide)
And the court said "negligently isn't enough." We don't know if the appropriate standard is recklessness or intent, though.
Re: (Score:2)
All depends on context.
Threats are a tricky thing. We must protect free speech and artistic expression. However, "true threats" are never and can never be protected speech. This is different from merely offensive speech.
Offensive: "You're a dick."
Potentially threatening: "I'm going to kill you, dick."
Offensive can be ignored, and should never be a crime. Truly threatening, however, cannot be ignored, and must be a crime.
But "I'm going to kill you, dick" is only potentially threatening. It also depends on co
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This doesn't mean what you seem you think it means. The man harmed his wife by making what a reasonable person (including his wife) saw as credible threats. If he had no intent whatsoever to assault her in any way, but had the intent to make her afraid by sending credible threats, then he did in fact intent to cause her harm.
They have to prove that he intended to make threats, not that he intended to follow up on his threats. I don't actually see this as much of a problem. I am sure he would have been co
No First Amendment Precedent, not overturned (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Supreme Court doesn't accept my legal genius, therefore the Supreme Court is wrong, and I remain the greatest constitutional expert EVERRR!!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
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
PROTECTED speech (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, technically its not "not speech" it's "not protected speech". But I believe that point is often to fine to make when communicated over the internet.
Congress(or the government) totally can preemptively muzzle people... I find it bizarre that anyone would believe that it's okay to punish a criminal, but not prevent the crime. It's just that it has to be worthy of stopping ahead of time, to justify the greater risk of injustice, etc. Usually state secrets, etc.
Your correctly found the origin of the ph
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 count