Category Archives: Free Speech

Kelly File Special: Who #39;s Teaching Our Kids? - Protecting Free Speech On Campus
Kelly File Special: Who #39;s Teaching Our Kids? - Protecting Free Speech On Campus =========================================== **Please Click Below to SUBSCR...

By: USA Freedom At Risk

See the original post here:
Kelly File Special: Who's Teaching Our Kids? - Protecting Free Speech On Campus - Video

Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet
Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet http://www.sanalio.com .WASHINGTON (AP) Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap...

By: Big News

Read more here:
Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet - Video

WASHINGTON (AP) Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

But his wife didn't see it that way. Neither did a federal jury.

Elonis, who's from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was convicted of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person.

In a far-reaching case that probes the limits of free speech over the Internet, the Supreme Court on Monday was to consider whether Elonis' Facebook posts, and others like it, deserve protection under the First Amendment.

Elonis argues that his lyrics were simply a crude and spontaneous form of expression that should not be considered threatening if he did not really mean it. The government says it does not matter what Elonis intended, and that the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.

One post about his wife said, "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 case has drawn widespread attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted. They point out that a message on Facebook intended for a small group could be taken out of context when viewed by a wider audience.

"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," said a brief from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

But so far, most lower courts have rejected that view, ruling that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.

For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks."

View original post here:
Supreme Court Weighing Limits Of Internet Free Speech

The Supreme Court is weighing the free-speech rights of people who use violent or threatening language on Facebook and other social media.

The justices will hear arguments Monday in the case of a man who was sentenced to nearly four years in prison for posting graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

Anthony Elonis of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, says he was just venting his anger over a broken marriage and never meant to threaten anyone.

But his wife didn't see it that way, and neither did federal prosecutors. A jury convicted Elonis of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person. A federal appeals court rejected his claim that his comments were protected by the First Amendment.

Lawyers for Elonis argue that the government must prove he actually intended his comments to threaten others. The government says it doesn't matter what Elonis intended; the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.

One post about his wife said, "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 case has drawn widespread attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted. They point out that a message on Facebook intended for a small group could be taken out of context when viewed by a wider audience.

"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," said a brief from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

So far, most lower courts have rejected that view, ruling that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.

For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks."

See the rest here:
Supreme Court to Consider Free Speech on Social Media Today, Thanks In Part to Eminem

Victims of domestic violence and champions of unfettered free speech on the Internet will be pitted against each other Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court debates whether to make it harder to prosecute those who post threats directed at their ex-spouses or others on Facebook.

The case of a fired amusement park worker from Bethelem, Pa., could determine whether angry rants on the Internet can be punished.

Federal law makes it a crime to transmit via the phone or Internet "any threat to injure" another person. And the Supreme Court has said "true threats" are not protected as speech under the First Amendment.

But it is not clear whether prosecutors must prove that an angry-sounding Facebook poster intended to make a threat, or instead whether it is good enough to show that a reasonable person would read the words as threatening violence.

Anthony Elonis, the amusement park worker, made a habit of posting threatening comments.

"If I only knew then what I know now," he said on his Facebook page after his wife left with their two children, "I would have smothered [you] with a pillow, dumped your body in the back seat, dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like rape and murder."

"I'm not gonna rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts," he said in a second message.

When she obtained a protective order from a judge, he asked in a post whether it was "thick enough to stop a bullet."

In other posts, Elonis threatened to kill an FBI agent who questioned him and to slaughter a nearby class of kindergartners. He was arrested and charged with making threats.

At his trial, he testified that he did not intend to frighten anyone and compared his postings to rap lyrics.

Read the rest here:
Supreme Court to debate whether Facebook threats are free speech

By Pamela Brown, CNN

updated 10:34 AM EST, Mon December 1, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- The high court will hear oral arguments Monday in the first examination of free speech rights and social media.

The outcome of the groundbreaking case, Elonis v. U.S., could decide the limits of what you post online.

Tara Elonis asked for a protective order from her soon-to-be ex-husband, Anthony.

Not long after, he posted a message on his Facebook page seemingly directed at Tara:

"Fold up your protection from abuse order and put it in your pocket. Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?"

It wasn't the first time Elonis had posted harrowing messages on his Facebook page.

Before Tara asked for a protection from abuse order, Anthony posted, "There's one way to love ya, a thousand ways to kill ya."

Continued here:
Facebook, free speech at Supreme Court

Chris Bliss - Comedy As Free Speech
Comedian and juggler Chris Bliss says "comedy as speech" has a historic parallel. It was the court jester after all who could make fun of the king. Because i...

By: IFTV

Read the rest here:
Chris Bliss - Comedy As Free Speech - Video

free speech helmet in interrogation 5
Lyon Smith and Beatriz Pizano, direction Trevor Schwellnus. Demo of "freedom of speech" helmet during an absurdist interrogation scene.

By: alunaT

See the article here:
free speech helmet in interrogation 5 - Video

Protecting free speech: Time to change our laws?
The Buck Stops Here: As the controversy over Penguin #39;s withdrawal of Wendy Doniger #39;s book grows, we ask on The Buck Stops Here: is the Indian law the #39;true v...

By: NDTV

See the rest here:
Protecting free speech: Time to change our laws? - Video

February 16, 2014 8:21 PM Share with others:

Is clicking the "like" button on Facebook a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment?

That was the issue at stake in Bland v. Roberts, in which six former employees of the Hampton, Va., sheriff's office sued the sheriff for wrongful discharge. The employees alleged that the sheriff fired them as retaliation for their support of his opponent's political campaign.

The support that one of the former employees gave was to click "like" on the opponent's Facebook page.

The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, saying that merely clicking a button was not the equivalent of expressing an opinion that would be considered protected free speech. The court felt that to constitute free speech, the employee would have had to take much more substantive actions. The employees appealed, backed by briefs from both Facebook and the American Civil Liberties Union.

And the appeals court ruled in favor of the employees and reinstated the lawsuit.

In making the decision, the appeals court applied the standards used for older forms of communications, noting that clicking the "like button" leads to a published statement that is "pure speech."

The appeals court argued that there was no constitutional difference between hitting the "like" button and typing a message of support on a computer keyboard, which would be protected speech.

The case continues the trend of courts determining that the free speech principles of old media apply to new media. And the ruling demonstrates once again that employers should tread lightly before taking punitive actions against employees based on their activities on social media sites.

-- Beth Slagle, Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, bas@muslaw.com

Read the original:
Business Workshop: Free speech, Facebook and protected clicks