Mediaboss Marketing

Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

But his wife didnt see it that way. Neither did a federal jury.

Elonis, whos from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was convicted of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person.

In a far-reaching case that probes the limits of free speech over the Internet, the Supreme Court on Monday was to consider whether Elonis Facebook posts, and others like it, deserve protection under the First Amendment.

Elonis argues that his lyrics were simply a crude and spontaneous form of expression that should not be considered threatening if he did not really mean it. The government says it does not matter what Elonis intended, and that the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.

One post about his wife said, Theres one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. Im not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.

The case has drawn widespread attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted. They point out that a message on Facebook intended for a small group could be taken out of context when viewed by a wider audience.

A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speakers intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed, said a brief from the American Liberties Union and other groups.

But so far, most lower courts have rejected that view, ruling that a true threat depends on how an objective person perceives the message.

For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that true threats to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as political hyperbole or unpleasantly sharp attacks.

Excerpt from:
U.S. Supreme Court to weigh free speech rights of threatening language on Internet

WASHINGTON (AP) Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

But his wife didn't see it that way. Neither did a federal jury.

Elonis, who's from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was convicted of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person.

In a far-reaching case that probes the limits of free speech over the Internet, the Supreme Court on Monday was to consider whether Elonis' Facebook posts, and others like it, deserve protection under the First Amendment.

Elonis argues that his lyrics were simply a crude and spontaneous form of expression that should not be considered threatening if he did not really mean it. The government says it does not matter what Elonis intended, and that the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.

One post about his wife said, "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."

The case has drawn widespread attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted. They point out that a message on Facebook intended for a small group could be taken out of context when viewed by a wider audience.

"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," said a brief from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

But so far, most lower courts have rejected that view, ruling that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.

For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks."

More here:
Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet

WASHINGTON -- Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

But his wife didn't see it that way. Neither did a federal jury.

Elonis, who's from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was convicted of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person.

In a far-reaching case that probes the limits of free speech over the Internet, the Supreme Court on Monday was to consider whether Elonis' Facebook posts, and others like it, deserve protection under the First Amendment.

Elonis argues that his lyrics were simply a crude and spontaneous form of expression that should not be considered threatening if he did not really mean it. The government says it does not matter what Elonis intended, and that the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.

One post about his wife said, "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."

The case has drawn widespread attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted. They point out that a message on Facebook intended for a small group could be taken out of context when viewed by a wider audience.

"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," said a brief from the American Liberties Union and other groups.

But so far, most lower courts have rejected that view, ruling that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.

For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks."

View post:
Supreme Court weighs limits of free speech over Internet

Many people don't know where courts draw the line on what constitutes free speechor what they mean by a "true threat."

In a 2003 case, the Supreme Court ruled that Ku Klux Klan burnings are sometimes but not always protected speech. (Rainier Ehrhardt/Reuters)

Not long ago, a dissatisfied reader emailed that he had enough guns to stop people like me. I emailed back to ask whether he was threatening me.

The reply: I'm not stupid enough to telegraph genuine ill intent.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear a case involving the question of when a seemingly threatening communication (this one on Facebook, not email) can be a crime. Lets clear up some confusion, shared by my correspondent above, about what threats are and why they can be punished.

The case is Elonis v. United States. Anthony Elonis lived in Lower Saucony Township, Pennsylvania. Until 2010, he was married with two children and worked at a nearby theme park. In May 2010, his wife left him, taking their two children. Not long after that, he was fired because of multiple complaints of on-the-job sexual harassment (for example, a female coworker alleged that he found her alone in the office at night and began to undress).

He turned to Facebook. About his former coworkers, he posted: I have sinister plans for all my friends and must have taken home a couple [of keys]. About his ex-wife, he posted: Im not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts. When she got a restraining order, he posted, Ive got enough explosives to take care of the state police and the sheriff's department and Im 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 ... The only question is ... which one? FBI agents came to his door; he posted his fantasy of killing one female agent: Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat Leave her bleedin from her jugular in the arms of her partner. He was convicted in federal district court of five counts of transmitting in interstate commerce (here, the Internet) any threat to injure the person of another.

Free Speech Isn't Free

Elonis argued that, under the First Amendment, the government had to prove that he had a subjective intent to threaten. He said he lacked that, in part because some of his posts echoed words by rapper Eminem. The court of appeals held instead that the statute only requires that a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm.

Lets break that down carefully. Elonis argues that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was actually thinking, This message will terrify the person it refers too, and I want that. The government says that it must only prove that a reasonable person would have thought it would terrify.

See the original post:
When Does the First Amendment Protect Threats?

Craig Smith, a California State University, Long Beach, communication studies professor and former presidential speechwriter, received two national awards Nov. 21.

The director of CSULBs Center for First Amendment Studies was honored at the National Communication Associations (NCA) 100th annual convention in Chicago.

Smith said he is now a third time recipient of the Robert ONeil Award for outstanding scholarship on First Amendment issues.

I wrote the award-winning paper with my centers research director professor Kevin Johnson, who was once a student of mine here, Smith said. So I am doubly proud of that award.

Smith also accepted the Gronbeck Award for his work in interpreting and addressing political communication issues. The award, Smith said, is the result of his latest book, Confessions of a Presidential Speechwriter, published last year in February by Michigan State University Press.

In his book, he describes the time spent as a speechwriter for President Gerald R. Ford and later for George H.W. Bush, Smith said. He said he recounted his history involving Freedom of Expression. According to his books overview, Smith wrote about meeting Robert Kennedy and Richard Nixon and advising Gov. Ronald Reagan. His book explores his time in Washington D.C., when he founded the Freedom of Expression Foundation and became its president.

The Gronbeck Award was named after Bruce Gronbeck, who died in September at 73 years old.

Gronbeck was a communications professor at the University of Iowa and was recognized as a scholar of rhetoric and media, according to the UI website. He received several awards including the Outstanding Mentor Award from the university as well as the NCA Mentor Award. He is responsible for mentoring 65 doctorate candidates at UI.

I knew Bruce for a long time since both of us were in political communication, Smith said. Bruce published a lot of articles and books on political communication, and I think thats why the National Communication Association decided to honor him by naming this particular award after him.

Smith said he recalled a Facebook post from Gronbeck on Sept. 9.

Go here to see the original:
Professor Craig Smith Wins National Awards