Supreme Court Ruling on On-line Threats/Free Speech Issue

[XLFD]

 On Monday the Supreme Court heard arguments by both sides in the interesting case known as  Elonis v. United States.  The case is of interest to those who tend to rant on Facebook or other websites who may say something that others may take as threatening.  A brief history of the case is in order.

In October and November 2010, Anthony Elonis, like many other Americans, repeatedly used the social networking site Facebook as a platform for sharing his thoughts. Unlike most other Facebook users, however, Elonis ran afoul of federal law by posting graphic and violent revenge fantasies that centered on him murdering his estranged wife, murdering his employer and co-workers.

As a result Elonis was convicted on four counts of transmitting "in interstate or foreign commerce any communications containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another." A jury sentenced him to 44 months in prison and his conviction was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

At issue is whether those Facebook posts constitute a "true threat" of violence, or whether they qualify instead as a form of constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.  Did Anthony Elonis intend to communicate multiple serious threats of illegal violence via Facebook? Or was he simply employing the forceful language of gangster rap in order to express himself in what he considered to be an artistic manner?

In his main brief to the Supreme Court, Elonis and his lawyers characterize his Facebook writings as part of a long, colorful tradition in American music, one where artists as different as Bob Dylan, Guns N' Roses, Johnny Cash, and Body Count all detail "first-person revenge fantasies" via song. "However hateful or offensive," the Elonis brief argues, "those songs are entitled to full First Amendment protection. The same protections extend to the efforts of amateurs writing on comparable themes, moved by similar experiences."

The government argues in its reply brief that a reasonable person may have felt threatened for their safety if they were to be targets of the Facebook rants.

Monday, December 1, Chief Justice Roberts sampled notorious Detroit white rapper Eminem and his song “ ’97 Bonnie and Clyde,” in which Eminem gets rid of his wife he obviously has murdered at the beach, asking for help from his daughter (the rather vivid lyrics, not the music, is in the following video):

“Could that be prosecuted?” Chief Justice Roberts asked Michael R. Dreeben, a government lawyer.

Mr. Dreeben said no and started to say something about context. Chief Justice Roberts interrupted.

“Because Eminem said it instead of somebody else?” he asked.

John P. Elwood (above), a lawyer for Mr. Elonis, said his client’s posts included elements of entertainment. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. responded warily.

“This sounds like a road map for threatening a spouse and getting away with it,” Justice Alito said. “You put it in rhyme and you put some stuff about the Internet on it and you say, ‘I’m an aspiring rap artist.’ And so then you are free from prosecution.”

The Supreme Court has said that “true threats” are not protected by the First Amendment, but it has not been especially clear about what counts as such a 'true threat'. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the term itself was unhelpful.

The standard proposed by the government would hold people accountable “for the ordinary and natural meaning of the words that they say in context.”  Mr. Elwood said more was required.

Ideally, he said, prosecutors should have to prove that the speaker’s purpose was to threaten someone. Failing that, he said, prosecutors should at least have to prove that the speaker, whatever his or her purpose, knew “that it’s a virtual certainty” that someone would feel threatened.

Killer Mike (above) has waded into the controversy spawned by the case, in defense of the casual white rapper Elonis in an op-ed piece in USA Today: 

“…No other fictional form — musical, literary or cinematic — is used this way in the courts, a concerning double standard that research suggests is rooted, at least in part, in stereotypes about the people of color primarily associated with Rap music, as well as the misconception that Hip-Hop and the artists behind it are dangerous.

In fact, the history of Hip-Hop tells a very different story. In its formative years, for example, it was explicitly conceived by many as an alternative to the violent gang culture that consumed cities like New York. Since then, it has offered countless young men and women opportunities to escape the poverty and violence in America’s urban centers. As rapper Ice-T once put it, ‘If I hadn’t had a chance to rap, I’d either be dead or in jail’…”

Read more here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/us/chief-justice-samples-eminem-i...

What are your thoughts on the case?  Be sure to not use any threatening language in your reply?

[Willy]

On the surface it seems simple but when you dig into it this could be an extremely important decision. To me it boils down to the question "where do we draw the line regarding threats". It's obvious that if someone walks up to your face and says "I'm going to kill you" then that would be considered a threat. If it's done over the internet does it make it less of a threat and if it's put to music does it then become just a song. Most of the rap songs, which disgust me, have some sort of violent lyrics directed toward women, cops, rivals, ect. or at least they used to. I will have to think about this some more and repost. Good topic X.

[XLFD]

I visited this topic, because in ways it has almost cropped up in the Ludington Torch over the last five years in at least three instances.

1)  Remember Safetygate, where John Streeter made some offbeat comments about what the council and mayor would perform on the kids when they visit the city hall.  An MSP Lieutenant took notice, contacted a Terrorism Task Force for guidance who initiated no action but said it was effectively probable cause for any affidavit (like a search or arrest warrant often require) issued to Streeter in the future.  It's very bizarre when you consider he issued no threat, just what Ludington's elected officials do to the public.

2)  Remember the Workplace Safety Policy, issued by the City Manager,  where CDD Heather Venzke Tykoski was trying to get me in trouble for "insighting a mob mentality" by showing public records that unequivocally proved her honey Nick Tykoski received special considerations for the $150K gold-plated signage contract, and performed unbid work for over $15K before any bid was even considered, she used a post by Aquaman saying that personally giving John Shay swimming lessons was a threat, and because of that and my (true) assertions of her unethical, corrupted behavior I deserved a PPO against me. 

3) Several instances of 'trolls' coming on to the site and issuing very real threats to me and other regular posters without any provocation before they were suspended from the site or left on their own.  These were the only significant threats made on this site, and yet even with the worst of them I would loth to prosecute any, being that they were not backed up with any further action. 

Mr. Elonis did play it close to the line between what's threat and what's allowed with free speech, how they rule in his particular situation regarding him will probably not amount to much, but we shall likely get something more clear from the court about what is a "threat" and what isn't.  We may just get a "threat test" where future speech can be more objectively screened as threatening or not.

[Willy]

Your number 1 above is a scary scenario. Not because of Streeter but because of the police action that could be activated from non threatening words spoken or written. Number 2 was a demonstration of Governmental idiocy and an absolutely outrageous act by the City against the Constitution and a citizen. As far as the trolls, that's to be expected. It's part of the internet. 

You bring up a good point. "These were the only significant threats made on this site, and yet even with the worst of them I would loth to prosecute any, being that they were not backed up with any further action." Who knows when a threat will be backed up with action. Most people want to spout off with no action taken but there are those nut jobs out there who will follow up on a threat so what should be considered a serious threat? 

[John Doe Jr]

Haaaa haa haa'   First off, a threat doesn't usually end with LOL. Or follow a thread line.

Secondly, in my statement I asked, If SGT Mayor (Previously described as a Rogue Cop working illegally under dual -offices in this thread, and sometimes noted by others on this site as an evil action figure)" might do this extreme thing to the people next, "with a ? ". Cause ya just never know?

A question is also not a threat. 

Because the kids were coming and the mayor switched dates and times it was like Hansel and Gretel to me,LOL.

I was asking,,,, if the quirky Mayor might in retrospect get them kids,LOL.

It felt like classic comedy to me.

And, I really don't care to hear anyone's heckle about it.

The people gasped, and said ohh what a horrible thing to say'

Then they attacked me. LOL

So what! 

One member on here stated he was glad another person burned up in a fire.I knew the person, the comment was appalling to me too. I guess it was the timing.... 

And, then  police  say, "Oh I feel threatened by your comments?", The comment had absolutely ZERO content of threat what so ever!. Nice try!

This is why I also advocate for Police Body Cameras!

The object in posting was to say what is this Mayor capable of, not me. LOL Read the print!

The response was, it's people like me,lol.

People take things, and change them to punish people who go against their loyalty to cops and churches, and retaliate.

Like the last comment where I stated you will be robbed, arrested, raped, and murdered.

Obviously, I'm not a cop so that wouldn't be me doing the acts. LOL

I'm talking, "LOOK WHAT THEY DID TO MR>MARBLE!! THEY KILLED HIM, I HEARD THE AUDIO!

And, my statement was made during many reviews of watching You Tube of police killing people, bad arrests, no accountability or transparency, and the actions of our local law enforcement mixed together.

I have a right to say what I want to say, and unfortunately some of what comes out won't fit in your ears.

I threatened nobody, and it's not my nature anyways. Check my police record, LOL!! 

I am the only victim here. ← It's ok for everyone else to rant about their cause, this was my cause!

I am a pot stirrer. Pisses people off sure, but I don't break the laws. 

If people didn't like my delivery, I apologize to them.

But from what was and is happening at city hall, and local restrooms, and people being killed in their own homes, I just have to speak, anyway I can to bring attention to the subject.

But look at this as a test , if you will.

Look at what transpired from a non-threatening comment, on a local hated by police website,  by the bizarre and illegal police actions I encountered!. Shows me that excessive force lives on!!

As X so noted in the swat raid.

I never stated any threat.  And, I did respond to this thread earlier, it was just deleted when I left this site to go do my detective work. ← {NOT A COP) LOL!!!!!  But I do take pictures!!

[Willy]

John

Did the police contact you about that situation regarding the Mayor?

[John Doe Jr]

Not specifically. But, a few things have occurred that I am not at liberty to discuss. 

Briefly, I have been stopped without incident, also wrongfully ticketed for parking but, the cop came to my residence and deleted it after further consideration.

The police have nothing on me. They are only mad that I speak my mind about the circumstances happening in Mason County in which I have full rights to comment on, and I will continue to comment on.

Just like this No Indictment decision for Eric Garner.

Even on video with full review, the police again get away with murder.

I am truly not the only person in this country who is appalled tonight.

[John Doe Jr]

Watching this video of Eric Garners death disturbs me. And, the justification in his death is bizarre.The guy was selling single cigarettes! When you buy cigarettes you pay the tax.The tax was paid for, for that pack.Even if that is illegal, is it right to attack him in such an excessive way it kills him?  No victim less crime should end in a death. Especially over a cigarette. Of all those cops who responded, not one could come up with a better plan than to gang bang him? That is sickening to me. I challenge these injustices, that they say is necessary for the individual, and the circumstance. It's wrong!  I have been advocating for police body cams. But after watching Eric Garner get murdered on tv in HD and No Verdict, I have very little hope the tool would serve as intended. So, if we have all the evidence on video and audio and there still is no justice, then the laws of police enforcement standards will have to be rewritten.Remember the 12 year old who was killed by Cleveland Police? There is something radically wrong here, and it's not me,lol. 

[XLFD]

That's why this ruling will likely be important, John, because "threats" are fairly subjective, particularly when you have officials trying to define them with their own metric.  In my case, a city official I never even conversed with felt 'threatened' by me because I ran a website and posted records showing her husband-to-be was profiting and getting undue favors from his and her position.  A thread became a threat, even when it had nothing in it other than whistleblowing on bad behavior by city officials.

Retired Lieutenant Leavitt of the Hart Police Post saw what he thought was a threat in your post and on that basis alone, had about every public official in the immediate area stressed out over something that just wasn't threatening.  The alarming thing about it was that we have our mayor serving on an illegitimate police, possibly carrying a concealed weapon in schools and at meetings because of the unlawful endorsement by Chief Mark Barnett who furnishes him with arms, armor, and ammo at the taxpayer's expense. 

And then we have the city attorney, who has been overbilling and double billing those same taxpayers, trying to claim reserve officers are not employees of the city despite the expenditures, the oaths of office, and the LPD uniforms they are wearing, indistinguishable from the regular force. 

For the robbed, arrested, raped, and murdered, by our officials, is this even debatable in describing recent activities by our officials.  We have had a Hart Councilman convicted of murdering his wife in her bathtub in Leavitt's virtual backyard; Bill Marble was killed without warning by one of the storm state troopers Leavitt employed.  We have police brutality lawsuits come out of the woodwork in this area, embezzlements galore by officials, violations of basic rights by almost all officials. 

Yet, Leavitt can't understand non-threatening metaphor concerning fears of people like streeter about those officials in a post?  Hardly, their actions were done to try and tame the Ludington Torch.  Sorry, we're like one of those trick candles.

[John Doe Jr]

Anyone who discusses police, their actions, their accountability, their wrong doings, will become a target in this county. You have no rights if they choose to single you out. And, all those who were appalled that members on this site would say such things even if they were truly happening, will support their wrong doings over the truth in a minute. A federal investigation needs to happen just like down near Paw Paw. I doubt anything will ever fix this, and those who fight injustice will ultimately suffer. It's a very sad day in this country.

[John Doe Jr]

And to think, we pay them...