backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by someguy123.. on Jun 18 at 4:37 PM


  (Source: Earmilk)
Penn. man lost custody of kids, was imprisoned for 44 months for posting threatening lyrics about wife, cops

A case that will be heard by the Supreme Court is testing the limits of free speech when it comes to threatening jokes and comments on the internet.  
 
I. Artistic Escape or Speech Crime?
 
The defendant in the case is Anthony Douglas Elonis (31) of Allenstown, Penn.  In 2010 he quickly gained attention for his colorful posts to Facebook, Inc.'s (FB) social network following personal problems.  The posts quickly spiraled out of control as Mr. Elonis' personal life collapsed.  Tried and convicted in 2011 of making a number of threats via interstate networks, Mr. Elonis has served his sentence but he and his lawyers still want to prove his innocence, vindicating the father of two.
 
At stake is whether threatening-sounding posts to online sites like Facebook are protected under Constitutional free speech protections.  In such cases many courts have argued punishments for "speechcrime" may be necessary, but even hardline courts agree that there may be a need for exemptions to protect the First Amendment rights of those engaging in satire or "artistic expression" and not making a true threat.
 
The issue is particularly hot as at least one of Mr. Elonis' posts quotes actors or musicians who were not charged for their own comments and internet postings.
 
Facebook
Anthony Elonis found solace in a troubled time in his life by posting dark, violent sounding lyrics, he says.  He insists the lyrics weren't meant to be taken seriously. [Image Source: Facebook]

For example, in a post from November 2010 he quoted the Virginian dark comedy troupe "The Whitest Kids U' Know" (WKUK).  Writing under his musical alter ego "Tone Elonis," he modifies the words of the WKUK performance "It's Illegal to Say..." substituting "my wife" for "The President of the U.S."  He wrote:
 
Did you know that it's illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife?  It's illegal. It's indirect criminal contempt. It's one of the only sentences that I'm not allowed to say....  Art is about pushing limits. I'm willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights. Are you?
 
The post came two days after the Virginia resident's wife received a personal protection order (PPO) from a local court, but it proved eerily prophetic adding fuel to the fire and worsening Mr. Elonis' legal problems.  
 
The roots of the rant began in May 2010 when his wife of 7 years, Tara Elonis, left him.  A self proclaimed fan of "emo" music and Gilmore Girls, Ms. Elonis and her husband enjoyed happier times not long after their first child was born.  The pair had married back when in high school when Tara had gotten pregnant with their son, Riley.  In a post on a social network profile she gushes:

Hmm. My name is Tara and I just straight out rock. You all know it. I'm married (almost 3 years) and I have two kids, Riley and Emma. You can look at my pics to see them. I live right outside of Bethlehem, but I'd do anything to get out of here. Seriously. I love music and movies. And so on and so on. 

By 2011 Riley was age 8 and the couple had also had a girl, Emma, age 7.  And the pair's marriage was teetering on the brink of ruin, amid Mr. Elonis's accusations that his wife was cheating on him.  As the pair's relationship fell on hard times, Tara Elonis filed for divorce and took the children to live with her father in Berks County.  

EminemDetroit rapper Eminem was an inspiration to Mr. Elonis.  Much like Mr. Elonis, Eminem rapped about killing his wife and killing cops, but since he is famous he has been charged with no crime.
[Image Source: Earmilk]

Losing his wife and kids left Mr. Elonis despondent and borderline suicidal.  Court documents state that he was regularly seen crying in front of coworkers.  Then he had an epiphany.  He would later testify:
 
I was basically listening to love songs and getting depressed.  So I started listening to more violent music and it helped me in some way.
 
Inspired by rappers Eminem, Necro, and Insane Clown Posse -- artists whose lyrics regularly brush on hyper-violent murderous fantasies involving their rivals, lovers, ex-wives, and  close relatives -- the resident of lower Saucon Township began posting prose and lyrics of his own to Facebook, under the monikers "Tone Elonis" or "Tone Dougie".
 
II. Threatening Lyrics About Wife -- Too Real?
 
Like his idols, Mr. Elonis' diatribes/lyrics targeted those he felt wronged him, although he insists they were cathartic jokes not promises of true violence.  In an Oct. 10, 2010 post directed at his wife, he wrote:

If I only knew then what I know now, I would have smothered your ass with a pillow, dumped you in the back seat, left your body in Toad Creek and made it look like rape and murder.

In another post he wrote:

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. Hurry up and die, b**ch,
so I can bust this nut all over your corpse from
atop your shallow grave. I used to be a nice guy
but then you became a sl*t. Guess it’s not your
fault you liked your daddy raped you.
So hurry up and die, b**ch, so I can forgive you.

After that post, Tara Elonis (then 25) in November sought a personal protection-from-abuse order (PPO).  She testified:

I felt like I was being stalked.  I felt extremely afraid for me and my children and my family's lives.

Tara Elonis
Tara Elonis accused her husband of "stalking" her after he posted threatening lyrics about her on Facebook, after she left, taking the pair's kids.  The pair divorced in 2012.
[Image Source: Badoo/http://k.7w7.us]

A judge agreed and issued an order barring Mr. Elonis from contact with his wife and kids, citing the posts as evidence.  Mr. Elonis would subsequently post the WKUK-derived/inspired rant, writing:

Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I
want to kill my wife?
It’s illegal.
It’s indirect criminal contempt.
It’s one of the only sentences that I’m not
allowed to say.
Now it was okay for me to say it right then
because I was just telling you that it’s illegal for
me to say I want to kill my wife.
I’m not actually saying it.
I’m just letting you know that it’s illegal for me
to say that.
It’s kind of like a public service.
I’m letting you know so that you don’t
accidently go out and say something like that
Um, what’s interesting is that it’s very illegal to
say I really, really think someone out there
should kill my wife.
That’s illegal.
Very, very illegal.
But not illegal to say with a mortar launcher.
Because that’s its own sentence.
It’s an incomplete sentence but it may have
nothing to do with the sentence before that.
So that’s perfectly fine.
Perfectly legal.
I also found out that it’s incredibly illegal,
extremely illegal, to go on Facebook and say
something like the best place to fire a mortar
launcher at her house would be from the
cornfield behind it because of easy access to a
getaway road and you’d have a clear line of
sight through the sun room.
Insanely illegal.
Ridiculously, wrecklessly, insanely illegal.
Yet even more illegal to show an illustrated
diagram.
======[ __ ] =====house
: : : : : : : ^ : : : : : : : : : : : :cornfield
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
######################getaway road
Insanely illegal.
Ridiculously, horribly felonious.
Cause they will come to my house in the middle
of the night and they will lock me up.
Extremely against the law.
Uh, one thing that is technically legal to say is
that we have a group that meets Fridays at my
parent’s house and the password is sic simper
tyrannis.

That description, which would later be later characterized in court as a detailed description of how to kill his estranged wife, would later come back to haunt him.
 
III. Sexual Harassment Complaint, Facebook Post Led to His Firing
 
As his relationship was on the rocks, Mr. Elonis' work life was also crumbling.  At the time he was working as "an operations supervisor and a communications
technician" of the local amusement park, Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom.  Amber Morrissey filed a sexual harassment complaint against Mr. Elonis.  The complaint led to him being demoted by his supervisor, Daniel Hall, the chief of security at Dorney Park.
 
Much as he did with his wife, Mr. Elonis turned to "artistic expression" to drown his sorrows at the situation.  He posted a picture of Ms. Morissey he had taken at a haunted theme event the previous year.  In the picture he was dressed as a demon and was holding a knife to Ms. Morrisey's throat, which had makeup blood.  In the Facebook caption he wrote, "I wish."
 
Halloween Haunt
After being fired from the amusement park Dorney Park, Mr. Elonis posted threatening lyrics about the 2011 Halloween Haunt (pictured). [Image Source: TripAdvisor]

After word of Tara Elonis's PPO and the threatening picture targeting Ms. Morissey reached Dan Hall, he took further action against his troubled employee by terminating him.  This led to yet more Facebook rants later in Oct. 2010.  The park was preparing at the time for its annual "Halloween Haunt" event.  Mr. Elonis penned lyrics portraying a plan to carry out an attack on the park, terrorizing customers and staff, and killing many.  He wrote:

Moles. Didn’t I tell ya’ll I had several? Ya’ll
saying I had access to keys for the fucking
gates, that I have sinister plans for all my
friends and must have taken home a couple.
Ya’ll think it’s too dark and foggy to secure
your facility from a man as mad as me. You
see, even without a paycheck I’m still the main
attraction. Whoever thought the Halloween
haunt could
be so f**king scary?

Ms. Morissey -- who saw the lyrics -- complained she felt so threatened she had picked out a spot to hide at the event should Mr. Elonis decide to carry out his dark lyrical threat.

IV. More Lyrics Target Law Enforcement Officers

His former supervisor Dan Hall had, had enough and informed local authorities in South Whitehall Township, where the park is located.  Local, state, and federal authorities subsequently began to question Mr. Elonis and examine his Facebook.  The police attention led to more lyrical fantasy from Mr. Elonis in which he sings/writes about killing Berks deputy sheriffs and state troopers.

In the rap lyric he threatens to bomb the local and state police, writing:

Fold up your PFA and put it in your pocket
Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?
Try to enforce an Order
That was improperly granted in the first place
Me thinks the judge needs an education on true
threat jurisprudence
And prison time will add zeroes to my
settlement
Which you won’t see a lick
Because you suck dog d*ck in front of children
****
And if worse comes to worse
I’ve got enough explosives
to take care of the state police and the sheriff's
department
[link: Freedom of Speech, www.wikipedia.org]

He followed that with a post "joking" about shooting up a school.  He commented:

That’s it, I’ve had about enough
I’m checking out and making a name for myself
Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius
to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever
imagined
And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a
kindergarten class
The only question is . . . which one?

Facebook threats
"Tone Elonis" found himself in federal court after he allegedly threatened law enforcement officers with violent lyrics on Facebook. [Image Source: ABC]

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began monitoring Mr. Elonis' posts after his supervisor notified them.  Around the start of December, FBI Agent Denise Stevens -- who had been monitoring the Facebook posts -- paid a visit to Mr. Elonis' home with her fellow agent and spoke with him.  Apparently incensed at the visit, Mr. Elonis would later that day write a post on Facebook, which he titled "Little Agent Lady."  He wrote:

You know your sh*t’s ridiculous
when you have the FBI knockin’ at yo’ door
Little Agent Lady stood so close
Took all the strength I had not to turn the b**ch
ghost
Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat
Leave her bleedin’ from her jugular in the arms
of her partner

[laughter]

So the next time you knock, you best be serving
a warrant
And bring yo’ SWAT and an explosives expert
while you’re at it
Cause little did y’all know, I was strapped wit’
a bomb
Why do you think it took me so long to get
dressed with no shoes on?
I was jus’ waitin’ for y’all to handcuff me and
pat me down
Touch the detonator in my pocket and we’re all
goin’

[BOOM!]

The post brought a swift legal response from authorities.
 
V. Charged With Federal Crimes
 
On Dec. 10, 2010 federal authorities decided they had enough evidence to charge Mr. Elonis with five counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce -- one count for the threat against his wife, one count for the threat against his coworkers, one count for the post about the school shooting, one count for the threat against local/state law enforcement, and one count for the threat against the FBI agent.  According to 18 U.S. Code § 875:
 
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
 
The law indicated that the maximum possible consecutive sentence for Mr. Elonis' speechcrime would be 25 years in federal prison.  Tried by a jury in early 2011, Mr. Elonis was represented by Benjamin Cooper, a public defender.
 
Anthony Elonis
A jury in 2011 found Mr. Elonis guilty of interstate threats, after a federal judge ordered the jury to consider all internet communications "interstate" communications, even if targeting local friends. [Image Source: AboveTheLaw]

On trial in Oct. 2011 at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a jury found Mr. Elonis guilty of four of the five interstate threat counts.  Judge Lawrence F. Stengel sentenced Mr. Elonis to a moderate sentence for a first time offender -- 44 months (3 years and eight months) in prison, plus another three years of supervised release.
 
Mr. Stengel began serving his time while the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard his appeal.  The 3rd Circuit considers Federal District Court appeals for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands.  

The appeal began in June 2013 and in Sept. 2013 the appeals panel ruled to uphold the lower court's ruling [PDF].  One particularly controversial point discussed in the appeal ruling is the notion that all internet posts constitute "interstate transmissions" even if the primary audience is people in your state, as the communications are often routed back and forth to and from data centers in other states.
 
The Circuit judges write:

In United States v. MacEwan [a child pornography case]... because a Comcast witness testified it was impossible to know whether a particular transmission traveled through computer servers located entirely within Pennsylvania, or to any other server in the United States. Id. at 241-42. "[W]e conclude[d] that because of the very interstate nature of the Internet, once a user submits a connection request to a website server or an image is transmitted from the website server back to [the] user, the data has traveled in interstate commerce.” Id. at 244.

Elonis distinguishes MacEwan by stating that in that case the government presented evidence on how the internet worked. But the government’s evidence in MacEwan did not show that any one of the defendant’s internet transmissions traveled outside of Pennsylvania. We found that fact to be irrelevant to the question of interstate commerce because submitting data on the internet necessarily means the data travels in interstate commerce. Id. at 241. Instead, we held ...

Based on our conclusion that proving internet transmission alone is sufficient to prove transmission through interstate commerce, the District Court did not err in instructing the jury.

IV.
For the foregoing reasons we will uphold Elonis’s convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).

With the loss of the Circuit appeal, it appeared all might be lost for the defenders.  Indeed Mr. Elonis served out his time and was quietly released last February.

VI. The Last Appeal

But there still was one avenue for Mr. Elonis to clear his name, however unlikely.  Last year Mr. Elonis filed for a Writ of Certiorari -- an appeal before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).  

Elonis SCOTUS Petition (Final 2-13-14) (With Appendix) by Michelle Olsen



In the appeal his lawyers write:
 
The issue is growing in importance as communication online by e-mail and social media has become commonplace.  Modern media allow personal reflections intended for a small audience (or no audience) to be viewed widely by people who are unfamiliar with the context in which the statements were made and thus who may interpret the statements much differently than the speakers intended.
 
The appeal was backed by University of Virginia Law Professor David Ortiz.  It is also backed by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and other civil liberties groups.
 
But despite the high profile support, the appeal was by no means guaranteed.  The Supreme Court has already ruled in numerous cases over verbal or pictorial threats, such as the 2003 ruling in Virginia v. Black, in which the SCOTUS struck down a Virginia law against cross burning as overly broad, despite the act widely being perceived as a gesture of racial intimidation in the South.  The case set part of the precedent that prosecutors had to navigate around at the District and Circuit Appeals Court levels in the Elonis case.

And while Mr. Elonis' lawyers complained that the Virginia v. Black ruling lacked clarity, going on to suggest that prosecutors interpretations in their clients case had been erroneous, such a tactic also wouldn't necessarily bear fruit.  A similar appeal had been raised in 2013 over a threat on YouTube, and the SCOTUS had declined to hear that case.

Anthony Elonis
Anthony Elonis, 30, will at last get his day in court before the Supreme Court to argue his innocence in the crime he served time for. [Image Source: Anthony Elonis]
 
But against the odds the high court announced on Mon. June 16, 2014 that it would hear Mr. Elonis' appeal.  The appeal may offer clarification of a number of issues including whether internet communications are inherently "interstate", whether menacing internet satire is allowed, and what exactly the limits of colorful, violent fantasy lyrics are.
 
The ruling will likely have an impact on future cases regarding sites like Facebook and YouTube.

Sources: SCOTUS Blog, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Scribd [appeal to SCOTUS], USA Today



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

USA.
By highlander2107 on 6/16/2014 8:58:56 PM , Rating: 4
Freedom of speech. He's allowed to say this, just like his employer is allowed to fire him. What is NOT just, is making him a criminal for it.

No one should go to jail for changing some goofy lyrics around.




RE: USA.
By Shig on 6/16/2014 9:02:16 PM , Rating: 5
You need to look closer at the first amendment. There are certain things that it won't cover.

"protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words)"

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."


RE: USA.
By Shig on 6/16/2014 9:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
There have been several precedents set after this one, but in general it still holds true.


RE: USA.
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/16/2014 10:38:24 PM , Rating: 5
I agree this is the legal precedent, but I think a compelling case can be made that this give judges the power to arbitrarily nullify free speech (and the Constitution).

Of course this is just one of many laws that have been past, largely in the last century, which nullify Constitutional protections "in special cases" or in times "of immediate [crisis]" or "imminent [danger]".

"insulting or 'fighting words'", eh? Pray tell me where that precedent's alarmingly slippery slope ends?

What if Reclaimer missed his morning coffee and is feeling a bit grouchy and calls me f**ktw*t and says my family members sleep with questionable people?

Should he be thrown in prison for 2 to 3 years?

With all of this, I think it's perfectly valid to use someone word's to investigate someone and issue warrants. The Constitution does not say that if you say things that suggest you might be planning an "immediate breach of the peace" that law enforcement can't ask a judge for a warrant and search his place.

In this case that happened and from what I've read he had no weapons and no other illegal materials. He had no "clear plan" and he made no attempt to drive to his ex-wife's place and harm her. He just posted crude and childish lyrics depicting violent fantasies against the woman who took his kids.

Where is the "immediate breach of the peace in that". Ditto for law enforcement. Obviously they searched his place and he had no bombs. If someone suggests they have a silo of Aegis cruise missile in their attic ready to destroy town hall and police get a warrant, search the place and find no weapons should the person be arrested for making a dumb joke?

There was a time in American history when at least some people had free speech without exception and disclaimer.

"Fighting words" are just that -- words. If you fight someone, now you've possibly committed a crime. "Tend to incite an immediate breach" is a bunch of weasel words. Did you incite a breach or not?

What kind of words have an "utterance" that "inflicts injury" worse than wounded pride and hurt feelings?

I acknowledge the precedent is that in "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

The problem is that any such possible "class of speech" that the court invents with rambling rulings is inevitably predisposed to being an arbitrary tool that's anything but "well-defined".

For example, as I state in the piece, Eminem can write the same kinds of things Mr. Elonis did and not be charged or sent to prison. You tell me how it's well defined when two individuals state nearly identical menacing lyrics and one is arrested and the other (who happens to be rich) is not?

"Well-defined", huh?

I think the words of Thomas Jefferson are apt here:
quote:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Mr. Elonis is a poor lyricist, even by Eminem/ICP standards and his comments were childish.

But how did his words deny someone else of their freedom?

At any time, anyone who was offended (e.g. the ex-wife) could simply unfriend/block him, and/or report him to Facebook moderators. Or they could write a diatribe right back at him. Or they could just ignore him. There was no denial of freedom in anything I've read so far.

When some men (rappers like ICP, et al.) are allowed to speak in such a way that other men are denied to, then you start to see how selective nullification of freedom quickly devolves into biased, bigoted, inequitable tyranny.

As an aside, it did appear reading the rulings that Mr. Elonis did potentially commit one or more crimes with his sexual advances to his theme park coworker. If anything, officials should have investigated that and pressed charges more thoroughly.

Instead they freaked out and lashed out at a man for writing insulting and menacing lyrics at them. Which is hilarious when rappers like NWA were allowed to be free, despite actually OWNING weapons (legally) -- which Mr. Elonis did not.

Let me quote NWA:
quote:
F**k the police comin straight from the underground
A young ni**a got it bad cause I'm brown
And not the other color so police think
they have the authority to kill a minority
F**k that s**t, cause I ain't the one
for a punk motherf***er with a badge and a gun
to be beatin on, and thrown in jail
We can go toe to toe in the middle of a cell
F**kin with me cause I'm a teenager
with a little bit of g0ld and a pager
Searchin my car, lookin for the product
Thinkin every ni**a is sellin narcotics
You'd rather see, me in the pen
than me and Lorenzo rollin in a B3nz-o
Beat a police out of shape
and when I'm finished, bring the yellow tape
To tape off the scene of the slaughter
Still gettin swoll off bread and water
I don't know if they f**s or what
Search a ni**a down, and grabbin his n*ts
And on the other hand, without a gun they can't get none
But don't let it be a black and a white one
Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top
Black police showin out for the white cop
Ice Cube will swarm
on ANY motherfu**er in a blue uniform
Just cause I'm from, the CPT
Ounk police are afraid of me!
So you tell me who is more of a threat -- NWA who own guns and were affiliated with gangs, or this guy who sang less than half as many death threats to police, owns no weapons, and worked at a theme park.

Or maybe the judges are just too incompetent to use common sense and see that? Seems to me if the courts are too incompetent to enforce a law in a seemingly halfway fair fashion, the law should be stricken from the books.


RE: USA.
By ritualm on 6/16/2014 11:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
Jail time is too severe a punishment for Elonis, and sends the wrong message altogether. Methinks he should be docked for x amount of hours of community service and issue formal apology letters to those he threatened via online postings.

If that guy gets jail time, you might as well claim how the hip-hop music industry is a menace to society and shut it down completely.

I myself got tired of listening to the same old crap - guns, money, chicks, violence, etc. - from every American hip-hop artist/group.


RE: USA.
By Nightbird321 on 6/17/2014 12:05:20 AM , Rating: 1
IMHO this is not really a boundary case. If someone posted something like that at work, they'd be fired instantly. Who wants to be the one responsible for seeing this type of behavior, does nothing, and then something actually happens? You'd probably be liable for negligence - ignoring the warning signs.


RE: USA.
By tng on 6/18/2014 12:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who wants to be the one responsible for seeing this type of behavior, does nothing, and then something actually happens? You'd probably be liable for negligence...

Well how many mentally unstable kids have posted stuff just as bad, have a history of mental illness and were not stopped before they went out, got a gun and killed people? Lets face it there have been parents of some of these people that pleaded with police to do something, but the police can't do anything until it happens.

I really don't see the difference here, why this guy?


RE: USA.
By someguy123 on 6/17/2014 12:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
Mick, I agree with you on the general concept of free speech and rights of artists, but the precedent of "alarming" or "fighting" words isn't as abused as you would believe. There are only a limited amount of things you can be arrested for under this doctrine, and people have avoided arrest by proving their case was not deliberately instigating violence. It's a very narrow law that really only encompasses deliberate attempts at starting a fight or hate crimes. Reclaimer would have to shout racist insults, claim he'll beat your a$s over and over, or follow you around trashing your family for him to be convicted. People have avoided conviction under "fighting words" even when they were yelling at cops or holding "f@ggots go to hell" signs around soldier funerals. The vagueness actually makes it harder to uphold because prosecutors need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their comments were meant to incite.

I think that the WORST thing Elonis should've received was a misdemeanor for intimidating an officer, if anything at all, so I do agree that they're going to far. At the same time, they may have been able to use his comments against the agent as proof that these rants actually are threats, if only ones he'll never attempt, since he was told his facebook was being monitored and clearly knew they were going to see it. That changed the game from being his own rant wall to direct communication, which they likely used to convince the jury that all of his posts were directed and purposeful rather than artistic or therapeutic.


RE: USA.
By tim851 on 6/17/2014 7:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What kind of words have an "utterance" that "inflicts injury" worse than wounded pride and hurt feelings?

The kind that makes the other person feel like you might be coming for them to kill them.

Are you saying death threats shouldn't be actionable? I should be allowed to drive to your daughters school, take a picture of her and send it to you with the "lyrics" - "Ima kill ya kid / Gonna skin her like a pig" - written on the back.
That wouldn't unsettle you?


RE: USA.
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/17/2014 9:19:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you saying death threats shouldn't be actionable? I should be allowed to drive to your daughters school, take a picture of her and send it to you with the "lyrics" - "Ima kill ya kid / Gonna skin her like a pig" - written on the back.
That wouldn't unsettle you?
In that case you've committed a crime, as I'm pretty sure a creeper taking pictures of kids at elementary school is an actual act that falls under various statutes, such as stalking laws, etc.

That was precisely my point -- the person's words are only made so extremely creepy in your example by the fact that he drove to the school and committed ACTIONS. Those ACTIONS are or should be illegal. If he documented his own actions, he's providing evidence for his arrest.

Now if he just posted that lyric on Facebook and sent it to you, I would just ban him and report him to Facebook. I fail to see how, if the person in your example hadn't went to the extreme of committing actions, that it would be "hurtful" had he not done actions.

Foul actions are criminal. Foul speech is not.

It's not that hard a concept.

You illustrate it well, unintentionally, with your own flawed example.


RE: USA.
By OutOfTouch on 6/17/2014 9:40:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He posted a picture of Ms. Morissey he had taken at a haunted theme event the previous year. In the picture he was dressed as a demon and was holding a knife to Ms. Morrisey's throat, which had makeup blood. In the Facebook caption he wrote, "I wish."


Really?


RE: USA.
By OutOfTouch on 6/17/2014 9:42:05 AM , Rating: 2
To extend on that, I don't think that jail time was the appropriate response. I can assure you that had that been my wife he would have been paid a visit by me.


RE: USA.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 9:54:57 AM , Rating: 2
"It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."

-Batman-


RE: USA.
By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 12:08:25 PM , Rating: 1
So he drives to the local park. Taking photos of, clothed children, is perfectly legal. There is no law that forbids taking photos of children, no one is free from having her photo taken in a public place. So are his actions now legal? If not, why so?

The purpose of the 1st amendment was to protect political speech. Non-political speech was regulated to no end.

quote:
There was a time in American history when at least some people had free speech without exception and disclaimer.


When was this? When Bruce was being arrested for and convicted for obscenity? When was this mythical time?


RE: USA.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 12:31:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:

The purpose of the 1st amendment was to protect political speech. Non-political speech was regulated to no end.


Survey says!!??

*BUZZZZZZZZZZZ*

Oohhh, I'm sorry. WRONG! Thank you for playing.

Honestly I don't know where you even got that idea. The First Amendment encompasses religious freedom, political freedom, the right to expression and on and on. It makes no mention of only applying to political speech. Where did you get that?

http://www.inclusion.msu.edu/equity/FirstAmendment...


RE: USA.
By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 1:40:33 PM , Rating: 1
Sighs, we are talking about the 1st amendment as it regards to speech. I very well realize what the amendment covers. Is it so difficult for you to follow a discussion thread? Why would the clauses for assembly or religion be germane to this discussion? Unless you are claiming the Elonis' religion had as a sacrament the posting of threats.

The purpose of the speech and press clause in the amendment was to protect political speech. The history is fairly well laid out, and historically accepted. The 1st amendment does not offer complete protection to a whole host of speech, for instance commercial speech or pornography. Artistic expression as a protected class of speech is a relatively recent event, coming into existence in the 1980s. The speech and press clause in the amendment were specifically added to eliminate the possibility of governmental censorship of political thought and speech.


RE: USA.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 2:21:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The purpose of the speech and press clause in the amendment was to protect political speech.


I am following the discussion. This, again, is wrong. It's purpose is to protect ALL kinds of speeches.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/...

Notice:

"What exactly did the Framers mean by "freedom of speech, or of the press"? Surprisingly, there is little definitively known about the subject. The debates in the First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights, are brief and unilluminating."

In other words, this concrete definition you're trying to push that this clause was specifically to protect political speech, is found NOWHERE but your own mind.

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...

Meaning if they decide that journalists can no longer talk about pink bunny rabbits and pass a law to that affect, it's also Unconstitutional!


RE: USA.
By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 4:42:11 PM , Rating: 1
No where but my own mind? Sir, your delusional. There are books written on the speech clause, and it is far from unusual for historians to believe that the purpose of the clause was to protect political speech.

As a practical matter, and there are scads of Supreme Court precedents on this, political speech was the only protected speech for most of the history of the nation. Government has had the power to regulate commercial speech since the beginning of the Republic and expressive speech as protected speech has only existed legally since the 80's. Man have you never heard of Lenny Bruce?

quote:
I am following the discussion. This, again, is wrong. It's purpose is to protect ALL kinds of speeches.

In response, from Cato (link below)
quote:
In one area, however, we have largely resisted that pattern— more precisely, the Supreme Court has stood its ground and protected us from ourselves, so to speak, by protecting certain freedoms as they were meant to be protected. That area is speech. Citing the First Amendment, especially over the course of this century,2 the Court has crafted a free speech jurisprudence that is robust and, for the most part, correct. And in doing so, the Court has made it clear that political speech, especially, was what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.


My view is hardly unique, certainly does not exist only in my mind. Unless you are accusing me of having the power to go back in time and brainwash Cato's Constitutional scholar.

But most importantly, even your link weakens your overarching argument that this is completely protected speech. From your heritage link listing exceptions to freedom of speech...
quote:
e. Threats: Speech that is reasonably perceived as a threat of violence (and not just rhetorical hyperbole) can be punished. Virginia v. Black (2003).

Speech loses its protection if a reasonable person would perceive it as a threat of violence. 12 reasonable jurists did so.


RE: USA.
By tim851 on 6/17/2014 9:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In that case you've committed a crime, as I'm pretty sure a creeper taking pictures of kids at elementary school is an actual act that falls under various statutes, such as stalking laws, etc.

Would you kindly reference me the law you think I might have broken, Mr. Mick?

As far as I know, in America, I can pretty much photograph anything I want as long as it's in public space -- like your daughter on her way home from school.
Most especially since I don't plan on publishing the photograph, but merely use it to creep the hell out of you and your family.
You know, as protected by the Constitution (according to you).


RE: USA.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 9:31:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What if Reclaimer missed his morning coffee and is feeling a bit grouchy and calls me f**ktw*t and says my family members sleep with questionable people? Should he be thrown in prison for 2 to 3 years?


LOL don't ask that here, everyone will just say "yes" :)

But excellent post, I can't argue with a single point. This is so black and white it's appalling to me it's gone on this long. This man's most basic and essential right as an American has been squashed going on years now. To have the horrors of prison forced on someone for this!?

"Oh shit the cops

[Notorious B.I.G.]
Be cool, fool
They ain't gonna roll up, all they want is fuc*ing doughnuts

[Young Biggie]
So why the fu&k he keep looking?

[Notorious B.I.G.]
I guess to get his life tooken "


This is from a Biggie song "Gimme' the Loot". I don't know, that sounds like "fighting words" to me.

quote:
Of course this is just one of many laws that have been past, largely in the last century, which nullify Constitutional protections "in special cases" or in times "of immediate [crisis]" or "imminent [danger]".


The fact that more things aren't protected speech than are now, tells me things have gone sideways in a big way over the last 75+ years.

We keep passing law after law that digs the foundation out from around the Constitution's founding principles. How can people be okay with this?


RE: USA.
By Ammohunt on 6/17/2014 2:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Do you feel the same about "Hate speech"? What about sexist speech at the workplace what about speech deemed incitement?


RE: USA.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 2:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
Not to answer for Jason, but I would think that has to be viewed on a case-by case basis.

I fear we're teetering close to Draconia here. Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent. But some here are basically advocating Thought Crime.

If we start down the path of "oh that's hate speech, off with his head", then we abandon the very principles we hold dear.


RE: USA.
By RapidDissent on 6/17/2014 2:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's not arbitrary... He is making direct and personal threats, but random assertions to the general populous.

Being that most states want to limit your ability to protect your own person, they have to be proportionately strict to attempt at protecting you before an incident occurs. Do we want law enforcement to respond to crimes or prevent them?

If we choose the libertarian vantage that crime prevention quickly borders on "future crimes", a-la Minority Report, than you must yield to my ability to protect myself from that which you cannot.

Which is it? Prosecute people for unwanted loitering outside your house, or prosecute you for killing that person inside your house?

I know which one I'd choose.


RE: USA.
By FaaR on 6/17/2014 3:03:40 PM , Rating: 1
You're only JOKING (of course!) to kill your wife until the moment you actually do it. Never in the history of ever did a man ever kill his wife after having repeatedly threatened to do so.

Seriously, put yourself in the situation of the other person; an arguably unstable ex-spouse is making increasinly dire threats (harmless jokes!) against your life. How would you feel?

It's totally okay, right? You sleep really, really well at night, you feel absolutely safe as you walk out the door of your home, every day. Of course you do, because the spouse is just joking after all!

Yeah of course, and repeatedly yelling "BOMB!" in a crowded theatre is okay too; it was just a harmless joke after all.


RE: USA.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 3:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
Better 10 wives be killed by an abusive spouse, then to lock ONE innocent man up because he "may" have done something.

This is the VERY principle our entire "justice system" was founded on, after all.

It's a crime to kill someone. It's NOT a crime to think about doing it.

We're quickly approaching "Thought Crime" here, fyi.

(ps there's tons of hyperbole in your post that isn't even worth addressing. Nobody is saying those things are "okay")


RE: USA.
By hpglow on 6/17/2014 1:04:43 AM , Rating: 2
Lotto many don't understand that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. If I make a song about Reclaimer and Mick eating crackers from a circle jerk and they can't get a job again does that make me impervious from litigation because of "free speech"?


RE: USA.
By hpglow on 6/17/2014 1:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
Lotto? Where did that word come from.


RE: USA.
By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 1:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
You could be sued for defamation, it has happened. Happened to Eminem a few times. Of course, truth is an absolute defense.


RE: USA.
By PaFromFL on 6/17/2014 8:04:05 AM , Rating: 3
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The 14th amendment is "interpreted" as also extending the 1st amendment to state governments.

I believe that any law that is used to send anyone to jail for just speaking is unconstitutional. Tolerating potentially dangerous citizens is part of the price of freedom. If the founding fathers had anticipated "hate crimes", they would have also protected the right to have bad thoughts. You have to wait until a crime is committed to send someone to jail.

If someone consistently makes threats and starts collecting weapons, you need to get his family to commit him to a mental institution (which we are too cheap to fund these days).


RE: USA.
By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 1:48:54 PM , Rating: 1
The founding fathers passed the alien and sedition act. Do you really think if someone had printed up handbills with similar lyrics in 1789 he'd not have ended up in prison?


RE: USA.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 2:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
The Founding Fathers also thought it was appropriate to hang children as young as 13 years old, literally, from trees. That wasn't considered cruel or unusual, if you can believe it.

I see your point, but it's thin. Damned thin.


RE: USA.
By PaFromFL on 6/18/2014 12:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
The 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts very probably cost the Federalists the 1800 election. In comparison, it's shameful that modern voters gave the "Patriot" Act a free pass.


RE: USA.
By GotThumbs on 6/17/2014 9:08:13 AM , Rating: 1
Freedom of speech still includes taking responsibility for what you say and how you say it.

If you don't think reading those lyrics put the fear of god in those individuals, you're lying to yourself.

Just let him have a job where you work, then start writing songs about killing you and your co-workers.

Step up and lets see you open your home/life to that guy.

I dare you.


By ShaolinSoccer on 6/16/2014 7:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
If you're dumb enough to post life threatening lyrics against someone, you deserve all the trouble you get into.




By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/2014 8:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
Okay fine.

So let's go round up every rap and hip hop artist and throw him in jail then.

The guy was just expressing a cathartic fantasy in order to blow off some steam. He didn't hurt ANYONE.

Wtf is this, Minority Report? We're throwing people in jail for "pre-crime"!


By inighthawki on 6/16/2014 9:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
No, this is Nanny States of America, where anyone who feels even mildly uncomfortable must find a scapegoat to take blame and be punished. Because it's unconstitutional to be offended or insulted, right?


By someguy123 on 6/16/2014 11:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
Have to agree since he didn't send these things directly to people as "threats"; they were all facebook posts.

Only thing I think he shouldn't have done was post some lyrics about stabbing the fbi agent that actually visited him. She most likely told him about how his facebook messages were being monitored and questionably threatening, so his post was explicitly made knowing that his facebook was a direct line to the FBI. At that point, I don't think rhyming would protect you from threatening to slice an FBI agent up. All he had to do was shove a disclaimer somewhere. Even rappers use disclaimers because, as silly as it is, it makes it impossible for people to claim the lyrics as legitimate threats without prior records.


By Solandri on 6/17/2014 12:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'd disagree. If there mere fact that a government agency is "monitoring" one of your means of public expression turns it from an indirect medium (you to the world) into a direct medium (you to the government agency specifically), the government has limited your right to freedom of public expression. The government can just start monitoring any means you have of communicating with the public, and suddenly you no longer have a right to say bad things about the government in public.

As the saying goes - if you don't like it, don't read it. Nobody is forcing these people to read his facebook page. If he were posting this stuff on his ex-wife's or ex-coworker's facebook page and he didn't quit when asked, or on the FBI's website after the agent visited him; then he'd be running afoul of stalking and harassment laws. But on his own page? He can post whatever he likes (subject to Facebook's policies since it's a private entity).

As far as I can tell, all he's done is written stuff. He's never taken any actions which might indicate he intends to actually carry out any of what he's written. As despicable as the lyrics are, if his sentence was based solely on the lyrics, then he's been prosecuted and convicted for nothing more than a thought crime, and should be released. People say crazy stuff all the time without intending to really carry it out. Watch 12 Angry Men for the "I'll kill him!" line.

Ever since Columbine where the only "evidence" that a crime was going to be committed was stuff the perps had written, people keep wanting to make writing and saying stuff a crime. That is the very reason why the First Amendment exists - to prevent the government from locking people up based on what they write or say. These two concepts (catching criminals before they act, and freedom of expression) conflict in situations like this. The First Amendment is there to clearly establish that in these situations, freedom of expression wins out. Always. Unless he's taken some action which could be a crime or a precursor to a crime (stuff like buying ingredients for explosives, or shopping around for a hit man), he's been illegally convicted.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 1:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
*wipes tear*

Man that...that was beautiful.


By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 2:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
Question to you: If they were not lyrics, would your opinion change at all? If he had just posted random paragraphs of crap threatening specific people would it be a crime?


By someguy123 on 6/18/2014 4:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
To me it's a gray area. All of his posts beforehand were clearly for himself with no (provable) knowledge that he was intimidating or threatening anyone. When he was literally told that the FBI was viewing his messages and then proceeded to write a specific threatening "verse", it's hard to argue that he didn't realize what he was doing or was just trying to decorate his facebook wall with rhymes. I agree that these types of lyrics should be protected in general, but at that point it was pretty obvious that he was just threatening cops while rhyming because he thought it was a loophole.


By atechfan on 6/17/2014 4:57:40 AM , Rating: 2
Death threats are not protected speech. When this guy goes out and actually kills her, people will be saying the cops ignored the warning signs. For the record, I think Eminem should be in prison too. His constant public threatening to kill Kim and her stepson drove her to the point of attempting suicide.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 8:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
He didn't make any death threats. He didn't send her a letter saying "hey, I'm going to kill you."

It's bad enough we have the highest percentage of our population in prison out of the first world, but when Americans start getting 44+ months in prison for song lyrics ....look I'm sorry but I cannot abide that. Something needs to be done about this.

I also think it's time the Supreme Court evaluated that ruling back in 1940-whatever. An era where it was "treason" to speak against war or have their own opinions, and people were being accused of being spies.

The First Amendment is basically being rendered completely useless before our very eyes. Pretty sure it was never intended to ONLY protect speech the Government and our society deemed acceptable.


By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 12:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
He said this:
quote:
"I'm checking out and making a name for myself. Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined. Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class."


That is not a song lyric, it is a threat. It was meant to be a threat. Now, you may believe that such speech should be protected but at least be honest on what you wish to protect.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 12:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
Those are absolutely song lyrics. You can hear the same kind of garbage on YouTube or a rap album every day in this country. Eminem planned out in great detail the murder of his girlfriend! Why isn't he in prison?

What about other forms of expression? If I paint a picture of me blowing up the Empire State Building, am I threatening terrorism?

Do you REALLY want to see how far down the rabbit hole this can go?


By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 1:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
No, it was a post. He posted song lyrics, he posted 'poetry', and he posted just words. People get caught up with the crappy lyrics, some of his posts were just posts.

Eminem is not in jail because there is no intent to intimidate. The test is pretty simple: Would a reasonable person feel intimidated or fearful because of the speech. No reasonable person would feel threatened by Eminem's lyrics. Or because he's rich and famous, pick your poison.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 1:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
Solindi said all that needs to be said here. I have nothing left to add.

If you think censorship is great, I'm just going to agree to disagree.

quote:
No reasonable person would feel threatened by Eminem's lyrics.


Right just his ex-wife who tried to kill herself after he was on-stage savagely beating a doll that resembled her while singing lyrics about murdering her.

NOooooo, no threat at all there! No intimidation either!

Wtf, did you even READ the article?


By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 1
I read the article. I have read many articles on this subject. And if you read my response you'd know my true feelings. Since you seem like you did not have your coffee today, I'll spell it out: Eminem is not in jail because he is rich and famous. Is that clear enough for you?

Beyond his song lyrics he has a history of actual physical altercations with women, some of which include weapons. He did not serve time for menacing with a loaded handgun, is it really difficult to figure out if he can get away with that lyrics and actions on stage are not going to send him to prison?


By tim851 on 6/17/2014 7:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Okay fine. So let's go round up every rap and hip hop artist and throw him in jail then.

Only the ones who threatened to harm a specific person or group of people.


By Camikazi on 6/17/2014 12:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
That would be a HUGE amount of artists since many in one way or another have "threatened" someone or some group. Let's start with any remaining Beatles since Run For Your Life could be seen as them threatening their then girlfriends or the writers girlfriend I mean

"Well I'd rather see you dead, little girl
Than to be with another man
You better keep your head, little girl
Or I won't know where I am

You better run for your life if you can, little girl
Hide your head in the sand little girl
Catch you with another man
That's the end ah little girl"

if that's not threatening then I don't know what is.


By tim851 on 6/17/2014 9:24:39 PM , Rating: 1
They don't threaten anybody directly. And they can always make the case that the song is from the POV of a psychopath.

A claim Eminem could not make for that Kim-song.

Neither can the guy in the article.

Man, is it that hard to empathize? Imagine your girlfriend has a crazy ass ex-boyfriend who starts posting shit like that on Facebook. Are you telling me you wouldn't be unsettled?


By GotThumbs on 6/17/2014 9:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
Now your just showing your A$$ IMO.

He is NOT a "Rap Artist" and was specifically posting/writing about REAL individual people he knew/met.

Just let him have a job where you work, then start writing songs about killing YOU and your co-workers.

Step up and lets see you open your own home/life to that guy.

It's pathetic how some people overlook the situations and focus only on the words of Law.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 9:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just let him have a job where you work, then start writing songs about killing YOU and your co-workers.


It's amazing how small minded some people are.

NOBODY is defending what he said. Nobody is saying his coworkers should be okay with his behavior. Nobody is saying he shouldn't have been fired or had the law involved in this.

This issue here is, was this righteous justification for throwing him in prison for years and ruining his life? Did the punishment even come close to matching the "crime"?

Let's be clear here: nothing happened. Nobody was harmed. He committed no crime. He purchased no weapons. He had NO plans to hurt anyone. He used WORDS. And it's not like he didn't have PLENTY of opportunity to carry these fantasies out, in case your suggesting this was a "manifesto".

If you're okay with someone rotting in jail for speaking words when no clear intent to harm others has been established, then that's your prerogative.

I think a few years ago I was having a really bad day, so I came here to vent. I remember saying that "all Liberals should be shot in the back of the head" or something to that extent.

Should I have been thrown in jail for that?


By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 1:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the sentence was excessive. He got more time than some rapists. However, it is difficult to say no one was harmed. No one was physically harmed but it is not difficult to imagine some people were harmed.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 2:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
If people feel they were harmed, then they are free to sue him in a civil trial. I have no problem with that.

What I STRONGLY object to was classifying his Facebook posts (which NOBODY is being forced to read) as criminal behavior worthy of jail time.

It's protected speech, end of story.

If the Government has the right to criminally prosecute Facebook posts such as these, it has disturbing implications for the First Amendment and the Internet as a whole.


By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 3:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
Except it is NOT protected speech. You might wish it was, maybe it even should be, but it is not considered protected speech at this time. Saying end of story doesn't change that fact.

I would probably agree with you that this is bad law, but not every bad law is un-Constitutional. And laws like these have historically been seen as Constitutional.

Ok, what are the implications? Because government already can prosecute speech like this, and they have been able to for the entire history of the US.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 3:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
No offense but I'm arguing the First Amendment with someone who clearly misinterpreted key aspects of it, even after being corrected on them.

quote:
but not every bad law is un-Constitutional.


This one is, clearly. And if you bothered to read the excellent explanation of the First Amendment I linked, you would see this isn't "fighting words" or "incitement" or anything of the sort.

And I might go as far as to say some punishment is warranted. But jail time? YEARS of it? Really?

Just get out of town with that.


By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 7:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
I've already read the Heritage piece, before you posted it. did you read the excellent piece by Cato that I issued in reply? The facts , whether you accept them or not, are: the belief that the 1st amendment clauses on speech and press originally dealt with political speech are well accepted, if not universally so, and consistent with both legislation passed by the early congresses and Supreme Court decisions; commercial and expressive speech (which includes lyrics) have long seen more limited 1st amendment protection; and speech that can be reasonably construed as a threat to do violence have no recognized 1st amendment protection. The only thing you posted that disputes any of this is your Heritage link, which I offered a counter example from Cato, the belief that speech as referenced in the 1st Amendment is hardly without basis and certainly does not exist 'solely in my mind.' And even in your link, and I am a fan of Volokh even if I disagree with him here, he states that there is no 1st Amendment protection for speech that a reasonable person can construe as a threat of violence. What exactly have I misinterpreted?

quote:
No offense but I'm arguing the First Amendment with someone who clearly misinterpreted key aspects of it, even after being corrected on them.


No offense taken, I feel the same way towards you. :)

And as to the punishment, something we can agree on! So I will end my part of the thread on an up note.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2014 1:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

I don't know how you can read this and say it's JUST for protecting political speech. It's for protecting ALL forms of speech and more!


When did she have her first kid?
By peterrushkin on 6/16/14, Rating: 0
RE: When did she have her first kid?
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/16/2014 8:34:12 PM , Rating: 1
She looks trashy? What kind of special stupid are you? She doesn't look trashy in any way. She is actually pretty cute.


RE: When did she have her first kid?
By hpglow on 6/17/2014 12:58:29 AM , Rating: 1
It's a young attractive woman. What do these people think makes her look like a whore? It's not like any of these pics depict her double fisting it. People bashing her are just generic Internet trolls.


RE: When did she have her first kid?
By peterrushkin on 6/17/14, Rating: -1
RE: When did she have her first kid?
By bsim50 on 6/17/2014 3:56:30 AM , Rating: 5
Sounds like you have serious unresolved "issues" over a past girlfriend. LOL.


RE: When did she have her first kid?
By atechfan on 6/17/2014 5:01:16 AM , Rating: 2
You are one of these guys who can't get a girl, so you hate them, then pretend to be a stud online because we don't know you so can't prove otherwise.


RE: When did she have her first kid?
By peterrushkin on 6/17/2014 1:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes exactly. I obviously have issues and I obviously hate women.

Really? Looks to me that in the US, men are no longer men. Feminism has completely won in this country.

Poor guys, you never really knew you lost. Just keep doing what you are doing. Getting it where you can. Crying your eyes out when its lost and then settling for second best.

I'm not American and my pov here in the US. To the women is actually refreshing. To say I clean up because of my accent, man... you don't know how good I have it. :)

Anyway proceed with the hate.


RE: When did she have her first kid?
By bsim50 on 6/17/2014 2:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Really? Looks to me that in the US, men are no longer men. Feminism has completely won in this country. Poor guys, you never really knew you lost."

Yeah, I mean next thing you know those "little women" will be riding around on motorcycles, smoking cigar's, wearing fake moustaches & grooming their armpit hair with the remains of their burned bra's, and you'll be hiding under the bed yelling "They're coming! I told you man pussies so!", right?... ;-)

PS: I'm not sure I understand the second half of your post, but like your earlier one, it has a rather strong confessional tone to it...


RE: When did she have her first kid?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 3:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
So Peter I just have to ask: How old were you when you murdered your first woman, and is the severed head still in the freezer?


RE: When did she have her first kid?
By peterrushkin on 6/17/2014 6:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
Guys I love it. Reading into what's not there.

Lets examine my first line eh?

"I know, you are one of those single guys who can't get a single woman and will settle for a woman has 2 or 3 kids in tow."

Key words here. SINGLE GUYS, SINGLE WOMAN.

I said nothing here about hating women. I love single women. Women who have no tie downs and no baggage. Namely the father and any other issues they have.

But no! You guys are more than willing to line up to have a crack at single moms. Well, fair play to you. Go for it.

I'll just be dating single women because well, maybe I have better game than you? Who knows and quite frankly, who cares?


By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 7:11:28 PM , Rating: 1
You know what asshole, you're talking to someone who was raised by a guy who married my mother when my sister and I were little kids.

My mom is an awesome person and was way out of your league back in the day, so no, my dad didn't "settle" for anything. He gained quite a bit.

Now just shut the fuck up and stop digging this hole you've landed yourself in.

quote:
But no! You guys are more than willing to line up to have a crack at single moms. Well, fair play to you. Go for it.


Who? What guys? What single moms? You just started making wild accusations and boasting about your prowess on the Internet for NO reason. Do you know how pathetic that is?

Pretty sure your "game" isn't all that, if you're this insecure which you clearly are.

Now in the spirit of this article:

Hey, you a little turd
I'll show you my Glock, and make you eat these words.
You think you got game?
I'm LeBron you playin' Scrabble.


OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Max points freestyle combo. Game over motherfucker!!!

Drops mic on stage


RE: When did she have her first kid?
By Rob94hawk on 6/16/14, Rating: -1
This is atrocious.......
By Nel Baum on 6/17/2014 8:01:51 AM , Rating: 2
His rantings are protected under free speech, no matter how much we, or anyone else, do not like it. Period. Especially since it was done with music in mind and as lyrical content. If this guy is guilty then they need to charge a whole lot of music artists outthere for the same offenses, including book writers, poets, etc.... This is the most asinine court decision ive seen yet.... it just stomps all over our individual rights!!




RE: This is atrocious.......
By Just Tom on 6/17/2014 1:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
Not all his posts were lyrical. Some were just posts.

Here's a question for you: What do you think the intent of his postings were? Was it primarily artistic or was he seeking to intimidate?


RE: This is atrocious.......
By Fujikoma on 6/17/2014 6:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is... it was to his own facebook page. This is no different than him making the same comments in his own home. Anyone that read those posts would have either friended him (which gives permission for posts of any nature to be seen by that person) or, if he had an open profile, would have had to actually go to his page to read this stuff. He did not send this to anyone. It was a passive post. He was not actively targetting his ex-wife.
This whole 'interstate' thing is a techinicality on the data path, not the reality of how the facebook page is used.


Action -> Reaction
By bsim50 on 6/17/2014 3:55:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Penn. man lost custody of kids, was imprisoned for 44 months for posting threatening lyrics about wife, cops"

Whilst going to jail is harsh just for posting lyrics, if you post this during a divorce proceeding...

"If I only knew then what I know now, I would have smothered your ass with a pillow, dumped you in the back seat, left your body in Toad Creek and made it look like rape and murder"

...then don't be too surprised if you lose custody of your kids. That's a perfectly normal reaction in most countries, and "kids go to mom after dad threatens to kill mom" is hardly "big brother pushing the legal boundaries" in itself...




This is not a free speech issue
By atechfan on 6/17/2014 5:04:07 AM , Rating: 2
Death threats are specifically forbidden. Freedom of speech does not allow you to tell someone you want to kill them. Inciting violence is another form of speech that is forbidden.




Decision pending...
By bupkus on 6/17/2014 8:28:22 AM , Rating: 2
.."lobbyists" from the private sector?




jail time?
By drewsup on 6/17/2014 9:02:45 AM , Rating: 2
A bit harsh, look, the guy was in a pretty big downward spiral, the escalation of his posts may or may not have translated to future bodily harm, but he should have been picked up for a psych eval, not jail time.
He needs help, not a cell.




where were the feds
By spepper on 6/17/2014 9:33:44 AM , Rating: 2
Where were the feds' concern when years ago, so-called rap artists were releasing songs with lyrics about killing cops & sexual assaults against women??? That "cat" has been out of the bag & running around loose for years, already....




If someone feels threatened...
By Grimer21 on 6/17/2014 12:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
If you scare a bunch of people enough for them to actually think you're going to hurt them, I believe there should be repercussions. All of you people pulling out the Freedom of Speech card are looking too much into this, including Elonis himself.

Sure, the punishment was too harsh. But, if the people he directed his 'lyrics' (they didn't read like lyrics to me, more rants than anything) at felt so threatened as to be afraid for their safety then steps did need to be taken to ensure their safety. That's all there is to it. Simple and plain.




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki