Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday June 08 2015, @02:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the mad-rhymes dept.

After Anthony Elonis's wife left him, he began to write graphically violent rap lyrics and post them to his Facebook account. In several posts, he fantasized about murdering his estranged wife. Others contained violent thoughts about the workplace from which he had been fired, his former co-workers, and an FBI agent who had investigated the matter. In one post, he even talked about massacring a local kindergarten class.

The decision? Intent to threaten must be demonstrated in order to convict for the criminal offense of "transmission of threats in interstate commerce". The court did not rule on whether or not "recklessness" would be sufficient.

The 7-2 ruling reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and "narrowed the circumstances under which individuals can be convicted of making criminal threats under federal law when they post statements on social media like Facebook."

On Monday, the Supreme Court handed Elonis a victory by overturning his conviction. At the same time, however, the Court declined his invitation to issue a broad ruling on First Amendment grounds. Instead, the majority took a minimalist approach, deciding no more than was absolutely necessary to dispose of the case before it.

See also: Oyez and Justia.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Covalent on Monday June 08 2015, @03:01PM

    by Covalent (43) on Monday June 08 2015, @03:01PM (#193677) Journal

    I learned this when I was a kid. Just because he added "on a computer" to this old idea doesn't make his speech any more harmful.

    --
    You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 08 2015, @03:20PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday June 08 2015, @03:20PM (#193684) Journal

    Pre-internet, people did all kinds of violent fantasies on paper and talk about it, but none of it ever left the home. Unless there were a case of "unexplainable" violent rage. And still that is likely to be statistically insignificant enough to bother a policy change. The only thing that really changed were group dynamics due contact and that people has to deal with reality without the, ignorance is a bliss.

    Though when lack of empathy and presence of previous criminal activity (rule breaking), violence and guns are present. It's time to carefully watch that individual. Drugs, medication and and polarized views may fuel a probability for something to happen too.

    He's just likely to be pissed of and getting an outlet for it on paper (or in bitmaps). Time to move on to more important cases.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:46PM (#193692)

      > Pre-internet, people did all kinds of violent fantasies on paper and talk about it, but none of it ever left the home.

      And if it did leave the house, like in a letter sent to the victim or stuck under her car's windshield wiper, it then became a problem. The guy made these posts explicitly public.

      Besides that, your entire analysis has nothing to do with the case. The case was not about whether the threats were private or public, it was about the standard required to decide if they are threats. The over-turned standard was one based on perception of the recipient, the court said that the standard must be intent.

      However, this guy is not exonerated, his case has been remanded to a lower court to apply the intent standard. He's going to lose that case because his intent was pretty clear, the "oh its just rap lyrics" is a fig leaf that won't stand. It's no different from school-yard bully tactics of making a threat and then saying "only joking!"

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:53PM (#193697)

        And if it did leave the house, like in a letter sent to the victim or stuck under her car's windshield wiper, it then became a problem. The guy made these posts explicitly public.

        Which actually makes it more dangerous for him if anything ever happens to her.

      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday June 09 2015, @03:25PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday June 09 2015, @03:25PM (#194104) Journal

        And if it did leave the house, like in a letter sent to the victim or stuck under her car's windshield wiper, it then became a problem. The guy made these posts explicitly public.

        Yes, he made them public. Very unlike a letter sent to the victim or stuck under her car's windshield wiper. The latter is obviously a threat directed towards a specific person; the former is more likely just someone venting to their friends.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @05:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @05:49PM (#194140)

          > Very unlike a letter sent to the victim or stuck under her car's windshield wiper.

          Not identical, but also not the same as "just venting to friends." Especially when the author knows that his wife is in the circle of people most likely to see the threats.

          The very fact that he explicitly included disclaimers about just exercising his first ammenmdnet rights in the threats makes it quite clear he was trying to have his cake and eat it too since no one includes such a disclaimer in something they know isn't threatening.

  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday June 08 2015, @03:46PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 08 2015, @03:46PM (#193693) Journal

    I get what you're trying to say, but threats without the intent to follow through on can sure seem like serious threats to other people. Which can seriously affect people's ability to live their lives.

    Kids might not have learned that yet, but if an adult threatens someone, they should expect to be held accountable for it.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:54PM (#193698)

      > threats without the intent to follow through on can sure seem like serious threats to other people.

      This case isn't about intent to follow through, it is about intent to threaten. The SCOTUS ruled that intent to threaten is required, not whether the victim felt threatened. He would have been convicted under the SCOTUS standard too, its just that the original court used the more lax standard. His case is going to be retried and he'll be convicted again.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:58PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:58PM (#193699)

        His case is going to be retried and he'll be convicted again.

        How could it be retried at this point?

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @04:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @04:03PM (#193707)

          Superior courts remand cases all the time. This is not double jeopardy because he was not acquitted, the conviction was just reversed.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @05:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @05:55PM (#194145)

    The idea that words can't hurt is fucking stupid and obviously false. Words can and do hurt. Psychological abuse is a very real thing.