Anthony Elonis, a man who posted violent rap lyrics on facebook was convicted of threatening his wife. children, and an FBI agent. The violent lyrics described him killing his wife, shooting a classroom of kindergarteners and attacking an FBI agent. A federal jury didn’t believe Elonis when he said he was only kidding. In a second post online, Elonis said "Revenge is a dish that is best served cold with a delicious side of psychological torture." Clearly these are threatening words, but where do we draw the line between free speech and illegal threats? After a three hour court hearing, Elonis’ wife Tara was able to obtain a restraining order, but Elonis continued to post threatening messages on facebook.
Free speech advocates say that it is easy for messages posted online to be misunderstood when viewed out of context. The American Civil Liberties Union said that "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.” The government however believes that it does not matter what Elonis intended with the online posts. The only test of a threat is whether or not the words make a person feel threatened. Lower courts have stood by this view that the Supreme Court has agreed with for more than four decades. When he testified, Elonis claimed he was depressed and simply venting about losing his job at an amusement park and his wife leaving him. He also claimed his posts were no different than many of the words in rap music of today. Regardless, Elonis was indicted on five counts of interstate communication of illegal threats. He was sentenced to 44 months in prison, but his appeal has now reached the Supreme Court. Elonis contends that a jury must find he actually intended to be threatening, not that a person could find the words threatening. Previously in 2003, in the case of Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court stated that a person doesn’t have to intend to carry out a threat, threatening itself is a crime as it causes other people to fear for their lives. The Supreme Court aims to clarify what the government requires to convict a person of threatening someone else illegally.
Do you think that lower courts were correct in convicting Anthony Elonis of threatening his wife and others? Or should his online posts be protected under the first amendment's guarantee of free speech. I believe he is guilty, and the convictions against him are correct, especially due to the fact that he continued the messages after receiving a restraining order. However, it is very difficult to create a way to judge a persons supposed threats in a consistent way in every case. The Supreme Court has a tough job ahead of them as it seems like there will always be some way to claim your speech should be protected under the first amendment.
Sources:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/when-does-the-first-amendment-protect-threats-elonis-united-states-supreme-court-free-speech/383255/2/
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/01/366534452/is-a-threat-posted-on-facebook-really-a-threat
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-online-threat-illegal-and-when-is-it-free-speech/
10 comments:
Ben,
With all of the recent cases of school shootings and the present issue of domestic violence; I cannot help but agree with you. When the Founded Fathers had the idea of free speech in mind, I doubt that they ever thought of a future where opinions could be posted to the masses in a matter of seconds. I know that this greatly conflicts with the concept of free speech, but there are exceptions, especially when violence is involved. Despite Elonis's claims of "venting" that in no way justifies shooting a classroom of kindergartners.
However, Elonis does bring up an interesting point about rap music. Not generalizing or anything, but there are rap songs that discuss acts of violence towards other people.
Yet, that does not justify Elonis's words of violence towards his wife and family. Even after he was given the restraining order, he continued to post horrific comments.
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court interprets with case, especially after the Virginia V Black. Although, that case did take place during 2003; and the influence of technology has drastically changed since then.
Ben, you've presented an interesting piece here. I have to say that I partially agree with Lily, in that free speech isn't free threats, and the founding fathers never intended it to be that way. But what the Supreme court has taken upon themselves here is a case dealing with intentions and "true threats"; what constitutes a real, bona-fide threat vs. someone postulating wildly, a piece of legality that has been debated back and forth. The way I see it, this case frankly isn't the right one to decide that based on, because Elonis has claimed artistic expression via rap lyrics as his defense. That opens up an entirely different issue that has been seen in the past, where rap lyrics have been used as evidence, even though no other fictional form of writing or expression has been considered permissible evidence. This has been an ongoing issue in trials around the country in the past few years, especially because rap/hip-hop are seen as a negative form of artistic expression by many, and thus can color the jury. We shall see what the ruling is, and how it affects not only freedom of speech, but artistic interpretation and expression on a cultural level.
What Elonis did was wrong; his intentions weren't anywhere near artistic. But how will this affect artistic expression in the future?
Further reading:
The brief on Hip-Hop music and culture given to the Supreme Court before this case-
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/13-983_pet_amcu_mbbfap.authcheckdam.pdf
Reference:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/11/28/poetic-injustice-rap-supreme-court-lyrics-violence-trial-column/19537391/
Ben, I also agree with you and think the lower courts were correct in convicting Anthony Elonis. Like Skylar and Lilly said, there is a difference between free speech and threatening speech. Regardless of what Elonis says if his wife felt threatened enough to take out a restraining order against him she really must have felt threatened and afraid for her life. Considering he made her feel unsafe his lyrics should be considered a threat and not be protected under the First Amendment or a form of artistic expression. Even if he meant them as harmless lyrics in a song they still created unnecessary panic and caused his wife to fear for her safety. In Schenk v. United States the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's opposition to the military draft was not protected by the Constitution because it posed a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts. Although Elonis may claim the lyrics are harmless, they put his wife in clear and present danger because she does not feel safe being around him anymore. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it creates unnecessary panic and commotion, these lyrics are the modern day equivalent. Obviously enough people took offense and felt threatened by these lyrics if this case has now ended up in court. His rap has created unnecessary panic for his wife, the FBI officer, school children, and the court officials involved in hearing his case. He is guilty and his lyrics should not be considered free speech.
Ben, I absolutely agree with your stance on this controversial issue. I too think that Elonis is guilty and that he deserved to be convicted and sentenced to prison. Due to the ruling in Virginia v. Black in 2003, Elonis should be considered guilty of threatening his wife as well as an FBI agent. This ruling stated that a person does not have to carry out a threat to be considered guilty, because threatening itself is a crime and it causes others to fear for their lives. A threat in itself can have the same effect as pulling out a gun on someone as it makes them scared at the possibility that they might die.
This threat made by Anthony Elonis should not be taken lightly by the Supreme Court. He posted the violent lyrics on facebook, therefore he clearly intended for his wife to see them, and even the general public. I believe that Elonis wanted to have his voice heard after being fired from his job and left by his wife, and the only way that he could do this was by posting a violent threat online. According to previous Supreme Court rulings, this threat was illegal, and therefore Elonis should have been convicted and put in jail.
I have to agree with you Ben. The threats made by Elonis are out of line and he should be convicted and put into jail. Eloise brings up points of rap music today involving violence towards other people but never as serious as pointing them towards their only family and wife like Elonis did. The problem I have with this insistence is that Elonis made these horrible comments after a restraining order was already put on him. How could one repeat these words more than once and still believe he has the right to his freedom of speech. The founding fathers definitely did not have this idea of free speech in mind. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court deals with this court but lets remember this ruling stated that a person does not have to carry out a threat to be considered guilty, threats given by Elonis were posted on Facebook for people to see, and because of that it made people fear for their lives. The supreme court should not take these words lightly and Elonis must take ownership in his words and face legal matters.
I think that this issue in particular is one that is often in deliberation, however there is a fine line in choosing to prosecute an individual based on online posts and opinion forums due to the free speech clauses that Ben stated. I agree with Ben that endangering others through threats, whether intended or not, should be illegal as it creates a sense of fear that no one should have to endure. The Founding Fathers, while they didn't anticipate the influence of media in modern times, still agreed that free speech should be limited if it becomes a threat to public safety. Since Elonis's threats are reaching a far greater audience do to the accessibility of Facebook, I think that his actions are punishable by jail time. However, I agree with Kayleen that this case puts in perspective the other "violations" to free speech that are present in rap music and other types of "expression." Who are we to say that Elonis has to be convicted if popular rappers and celebrities remain free to say the same things across radio, television and other forms of media that are spread worldwide? I still believe that his wife and children are justified in seeking legal protection, however, the price to pay of 44 months in prison seems very extreme.
It seems that the rise of social media, while making interaction easier and more accessible, has caused discrepancy regarding the right of free speech. With multiple cases of people being charged with threatening others over social media, the question of whether these threats made over social media should be taken seriously is one that Supreme Courts are trying to answer. Since the Founding Fathers obviously did not know what social media was at their time, the 1st amendment cannot protect what people post on social media in the same light. However, it is easier to type on a computer and press enter then it is to actually threaten someone in person; for that reason, it has to be taken into consideration that people may post something in the heat of the moment and then regret it later. According to your article, “the government believes that it does not matter what Elonis intended with the online posts, the only test of a threat is whether or not the words make a person feel threatened.” Since people tend to say things they may regret when they are angry, they are stuck facing the consequences for something they may not have meant in a rational frame of mind. I believe that Elonis needs help, rather than punishment. It seems that based on his posts and what was going on with his life during at the time he made the statements, he was not in the best frame of mind. Rather than punishing him for making these statements that very well could have been made out of anger, he should be given proper help because it appears that he may be not sane. While he did continue to make the statements even after the restraining order, he did not take any physical action against his wife neither did he actually violate the restraining order. I think that he was venting his anger and that the situation was blown out of proportion. However, if something needs to be done, he should be given help rather than be punished.
Dan is absolutely right when he says that the rise of social media has affected the interpretation of free speech. With the ability to press a button and have a message up and able to be viewed by the entire world changes the game in a way the Founders could never have imagined. It also brings with it the issue of deciding whether or not he was actually threatening his wife and others or simply thought these lyrics were rhythmic gold. There is a very fine line between exercising the right to free speech and threatening someone else, either directly or even just making them feel like they are in danger. However, I question the statement that you make, Ben, that "the only test of a threat is whether or not the words make a person feel threatened." Where is the line drawn if this statement is true? Am I exercising my right as an American citizen under the constitution if I said that someone's Facebook message to me, completely neutral and not threatening at all, made me feel threatened? Every single person has a different opinion of what is threatening and what is simply considered jest or anything else, so how can there possibly be a strict law on such a topic? This is a very fragile concept within the constitution that is up for much interpretation, and along with that brings a lot of controversy and conflict. I am sure that Elonis, if he was in his right mind when writing the Facebook messages, believed them to be simply lyrics and not distressing or threatening in any kind, so in his mind he was exercising his ability of free speech. However, to others, it was a clear threat to his wife and others and was deemed illegal. This still makes me question how this right of American citizens can be interpreted so many ways, and if it can, which is the right way?
What I find interesting about this case, to build on points that Lilly, Skylar, and Caroline touched upon, is that it raises questions about where to draw First Amendment rights in the music world. In this case, Elonis’s words were threatening, vulgar, and frightening; popular songs, many of which are raps, often contain similarly violent lyrics. Despite this, people often believe that artists have a constitutional right to include threats or references to violence in their work because the artists have no intent of carrying out such threats. However, based on the Virginia v. Black ruling, “the speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat” for words or actions to be construed as a true threat. Moreover, freedom of speech can be limited in order to protect “individuals from fear of violence…from the disruption that fear engenders,” and “from the possibility that threatened violence will occur.”
Again, many supporters of violent lyrics would argue that no real fear comes from an artist’s words. I beg to differ, however.
For example, let’s look at a few lines from Eminem, who is perhaps the most extreme example of an artist that issues threats in his. On numerous occasions, he has threatened to attack fellow female artists and other women, such as in his recently published song “Shady XV – THE CXVPHER.” At one point in the piece, he promises to “punch Lana Del Rey right in the face twice…till her head is banging on the railing.” At least to me, that seems like a pretty direct threat; the intended victim is mentioned, and the action, which is violent and frightening, is explicitly stated.
Perhaps, however, those lyrics aren’t drastic enough to qualify as a true threat. If so, let’s look at another example. In one song, Eminem raps “I got 99 problems and the bitch ain't one / She's all 99 of them I need a machine gun / I take ‘em all out I hope you hear this song / And go into a cardiac arrest, and have a heart attack / And just drop dead.” Let me rephrase that: Eminem explicitly states that he wants to shoot a woman with a machine gun. Now, I don’t care if he intends to carry out these actions or not; whenever you promise to shoot someone with a machine gun so that they go into cardiac arrest and die, that’s a threat, and it should be treated as such.
Therefore, in many situations, I don’t see a difference between Elonis and musical artists, and I’m not sure, were the issue brought to court, that the legal system would either. However, I do not think that the ruling in this Supreme Court case will have an impact on the music world unless someone files a lawsuit against such lyrics using the Elonis case and other free speech cases as a springboard, for if the law is not applied to a situation, custom will reign supreme.
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6312265/eminem-vs-women
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/1/facebook-threat-supremecourt.html
http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/eminem-hip-hop-we-shouldnt-accept-misogyny-in-2013
I agree with the court's decision to indict Elonis on this highly controversial issue. While I fully support the rights given to Americans by the first amendment, it is always necessary to stop action that creates extreme circumstances. I think that the right course of action was taken with regard to Elonis because the court did give him the benefit of the doubt the first time he was accused of writing threatening words through his rap music. However, he did not stop after he was given that warning, which suggests that psychologically, this man does not respond well to "warnings." With regard to all crime, if a person repeatedly does something after being told not to, then they will only respond to punishment. It is not acceptable to let criminals off with warnings in the hope that they will somehow change or have some kind of revelation. A person prove, before being given another chance, that their behavior has changed and will no longer be a danger to society. So in this case, Elonis was rightfully indicted and convicted with regard to these serious threats.
Post a Comment