Posted on 11/27/2014 6:29:41 PM PST by Theoria
Exhibit 12 in the government’s case against Anthony Elonis is a screenshot of a Facebook post he wrote in October 2010, five months after his wife, Tara, left him. His name appears in the site’s familiar blue, followed by words that made Tara fear for her life: ‘'If I only knew then what I know now . . . I would have smothered your ass with a pillow. Dumped your body in the back seat. Dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like a rape and murder.'’
Exhibit 13, also pulled from Facebook, is a thread that started when Tara’s sister mentioned her plans to take her niece and nephew — Elonis’s children — shopping for Halloween costumes. Tara responded and then Elonis did, too, saying their 8-year-old son ‘'should dress up as a Matricide.'’ He continued: ‘'I don’t know what his costume would entail though. Maybe your head on a stick?'’ This time, Elonis included a photo of himself, holding a cigarette to his lips.
After Tara saw these posts — and another one, from the same time, which begins: ‘'There’s one way to love ya but a thousand ways to kill ya. I’m not gonna rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts'’ — she went to court in Reading, Pa., and got a protection-from-abuse order against her husband.
On Nov. 7, three days after Tara got the ruling, Elonis linked to a video satire by the comedy troupe the Whitest Kids U’ Know. On camera, a member of the group mocks the law against threatening to kill the president. Elonis mimicked the group’s lines but subbed in his own text, to make it about Tara.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Only if they’re against prominent liberals. Otherwise, it appears to be fine to urge murder, rape, mayhem, etc.
But it should be no more “free speech” than a written or spoken threat, both of which are taken seriously and usually constitute criminal acts.
This is the same as any other threat against a person’s life
and should be treated as such. At the very least it is evidence that he is mentally unstable.
What’s a Face Book?
No complaints about your two reporters’ home addresses being published everywhere on the internet because they published the home address of the Ferguson officer in their Rag of a paper?
Depends. If you are black, Obama/Holder have you covered. If you are a Tea Party person expect a knock on your door.
That depends.
Is it a white male issuing the threat? If so, then no, it is hate speech.
Us it a minority ‘community organizer’? If so, then yes, it is free speech.
All POLITICAL SPEECH is protected speech. Even the lies.
The above does not seem to fit the definition of “political”.
explicit threats, legally, no.
If you have to pay for your internet connection, that speech is not free.
Only Leftist government censors can determine free speech rights.
This article is about a case now before SCOTUS, but you have to read below the fold to find that out.
I didn't realize he was actually quoting someone. This is awful and should be overturned 9-0.
Free speech was never meant to cover such explicit threats of violence.
Should be overturned?! This guy was making multiple threats to multiple people, why should that be protected on the Internet? Personally, he was rightfully convicted and similar action should be taken to anyone making violent threats online. Making violent threats is not, in my opinion, an exercise in free speech. Or, put another way, there are consequences to what a person says, such as falsely crying fire in a theater or making a threat against a person.
If they’re against George Bush, no. That is encouraged. If they’re hateful rants by a government-approved victim group, they’re OK.
Only if a normal person says something that a member of a victim group doesn’t like.
All courts agree that "true threats" are not protected by the First Amendment but that "rhetorical hyperbole" is protected (e.g., a poster on FR who says "Obama is a traitor and should be hanged.")
The issue before SCOTUS--and one that has split the lower courts-- is whether the jury should be instructed that it had to find that the defendant intended to threaten the victim, or whether it is enough that the victim reasonably believed that she has been threatened. (In other words, in deciding whether something is a "true threat" or "rhetorical hyperbole," do you look at it subjectively and from the defendant's perspective, or objectively and from the victim's perspective.)
Here, the victims all testified that they felt threatened, but the defendant claimed he was just "blowing off steam." (The jury probably wouldn't have believed him anyway, but they were instructed that his intent didn't matter.)
I think intent matters and words matter. That he wrote and made threats, explicitly, is very much different than a person suggesting someone should be hanged. The intent was obviously and he rightfully spent three years in jail. The slippery slope is when we start making excuses and allowing behavior that is somehow excusable because it is on the Internet.
He was paraphrasing a song! It would be just like me saying, “And I’ll shoot a man in Reno89519, just to watch him die.”
(BTW - I was going to use that Johnny Cash analogy with your handle BEFORE I saw what your handle was! Spooky ...)
Do you really think or believe that he was just innocently paraphrasing a song? I don't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.