Daily Archives: December 1, 2014

TEXAS CITIZENS PARTICIPATION ACT, ANTI-SLAPP LAWS, AND FREE SPEECH IN THE LONE STAR STATE
DEAR MR. MONITRONICS ATTORNEY - THIS VIDEO IS PROTECTED SPEECH. CHECK FIRST AMENDMENT. *** AFTER MUCH CONSIDERATION, I HAVE DECIDED NOT TO BEND AND FOLD ...

By: Vonve

Read the original post:
TEXAS CITIZENS PARTICIPATION ACT, ANTI-SLAPP LAWS, AND FREE SPEECH IN THE LONE STAR STATE - Video

Ex-CBS Reporter: Spineless Media Bosses Eroding Our First Amendment
Former CBS investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson joins Larry with her personal story of harassment, intimidation spying by the federal government and about the media bosses who allow...

By: RT America

Continue reading here:
Ex-CBS Reporter: Spineless Media Bosses Eroding Our First Amendment - Video

When your parents told you to watch what you post on social media, did you roll your eyes thinking it was an overreaction? Anthony Elonis, a man who posted a threat to his ex-wife as a Facebook status, should have heeded that advice.

According to a CNN article, Elonis case regarding his posts will be heard by the United States Supreme Court, marking the first time an official ruling will take place regarding social media and freedom of speech. His ex-wife, Tara Elonis, moved for a protective order because of the posts.

While the First Amendment protects free speech, including harsh words and commentary, it never should be used to justify a threat. Elonis posted, Fold up your protection from abuse order and put it in your pocket. Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?" He posted several similar status updates that would make anyone consider him as a major threat to society, and especially to Tara.

Elonis attorney, John Elwood, told CNN that the posts were a way to blow off steam, defining them as therapeutic. However, Facebook is not a good place to let off steam. If Elonis had desires to murder his ex-wife, he should have consulted a licensed psychiatrist, not a social media website. When someone spreads panic in a public domain, it should not be protected under the First Amendment.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who will lead the prosecution for the United States during the Supreme Court case, agreed with this assertion, comparing Elonis statements to a bomb threat.

Even if Elonis did not intend to carry out these threats, he should still be liable for the consequences of creating panic. A Pennsylvania jury found Elonis guilty earlier this year, and he was sentenced to 44 months in prison.

Elwood likened Elonis statements to a rap artist blowing off steam in a song, as an artistic and creative outlet. It does not matter how creatively a threat is written. A threat is a threat, no matter how one masks it.

Supporters of Elonis claim that the First Amendment protects the death threats he posted on Facebook. However, the First Amendment cannot protect Elonis ex-wife from a potential gunshot.

The underlying point is that everything we post on Facebook is public, and the author is responsible for what they post. Elonis could have used privacy settings or personal messages to keep his threatening feelings a secret; but the moment he posted them to his wall, he created a panic for his ex-wife.

In this case, Elonis deserved what he got.

See original here:
First Amendment does not justify Facebook threats

JUDY WOODRUFF: When writing in social media, like Facebook, what is defined as a threat and what is protected by free speech? That was the question at the center of a case before the Supreme Court today.

Jeffrey Brown has the story.

And a warning: This case contains some graphic language.

JEFFREY BROWN: In 2010, Anthony Elonis began writing Facebook posts about his ex-wife, angry rants filled with violent language. She filed a restraining order. And eventually Elonis was charged with threatening to injure another person and sentenced to four years in prison.

Now the Supreme Court must decide were indeed threats under the law or an exercise of his First Amendment rights.

And Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal was of course at the court today to hear the arguments.

Marcia, first, give us a little bit more details, a little bit more background on this case.

MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: All right.

Mr. Elonis was obviously having difficulties after he separated from his wife and his children. He was unable to do his job at an amusement park outside of Allentown, Pennsylvania. He was sent home from work several times by his employers because he was crying at his desk.

And also he was accused of sexual harassment by a co-worker, at least one co-worker. Ultimately, he was fired by his job, and he did do a post involving his co-workers at the amusement park that wasnt a very good one, but he wasnt charged under that. It was the posts that he made involving violent statements against his wife, against law enforcement officials in particular, an FBI agent who visited his home after the FBI began monitoring his posts, and also against elementary schools, threatening possibly to go in and have a major mass shooting.

Here is the original post:
Supreme Court tests limits of free speech online with case on social media threats

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday heard arguments in the case of a Pennsylvania man convicted of using Facebook to threaten his ex-wife and declare his intention to commit a Columbine-style attack on an elementary school. At issue is whether Anthony Elonis online rants were criminal or, as vile as they were, a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

The outcome of Elonis v. United States could determine the limits of free speech on social media and Internet forums, which are increasingly becoming platforms for vitriolic wars of words on a range of political and social issues.

Expressing concern the lower courts may have overreached in convicting Elonis of communicating a threat across state lines, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said convictions based only on an assumption of the defendants intent could set a chilling precedent. How would the government prove whether this threat in the mind of the threatener was genuine? Ginsburg asked from the bench.

In questioning the states case, Justice Elena Kagan noted, We typically say that the First Amendment requires a kind of buffer zone to ensure that even stuff that is wrongful maybe is permitted because we dont want to chill innocent behavior.

Taking an opposite tack, Justice Samuel Alito said First Amendment protections must be weighed against the states obligation to protect individuals from Internet speech that poses a very grave threat of domestic violence, a transcript of the sessionshows.

Chief Justice John Roberts also appeared to be leaning toward favoring victims rights over free speech arguments. Roberts scoffed at Elonis defense his rants, some of which were written in verse, signaled no more violent intent than, say, a rap song. All he has to do is say, as I understood your brief, its therapeutic, its a good thing I could do this, or its art, Roberts said to attorney John Elwood, who is representing Elonis.

On a narrow legal basis, the justices will decide what standards should be applied to online threats. In cases of traditional harassment, say through telephone calls, state courts are split on whether prosecutors must prove defendants subjectively intended their words would be taken as a true threat or that its sufficient to show a reasonable person would feel threatened.

On balance, Mondays arguments indicated the court "is likely to adopt some form of subjective intent, said Clay Calvert, director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project, which filed an amicus brief in the case. Calvert said such a threshold would protect everyday rants, which have become common on the Internet. The question is whether you treat a threat less seriously because it was made on Facebook as opposed to a direct message or other form of one-to-one communication, Calvert said.

Elonis began his campaign of harassment in 2010 with a Facebook post directed at his ex-wife that in part read, Im not going to rest until your body is a mess. He followed up with posts that said he was bent on mass murder. Im checking out and making a name for myself. Enough elementary schools in a 10-mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined, one post said.

Its a hot-button issue in an era when the Internet is increasingly being used as a tool to settle scores and launch harassment campaigns. In the ongoing Gamergate scandal, a group of bloggers launched highly personal attacks against a female game developer and her supporters. I think that many of the speakers who are online and many of the people who are being prosecuted now are teenagers who are essentially shooting off their mouths or making sort of ill-timed, sarcastic comments which wind up getting them thrown in jail, Ellwood said.

Go here to read the rest:
Supreme Court May Protect Facebook Rants Under First Amendment