Thread: Are Online Death Threats Protected Free Speech

It's very true that the Internet presents a unique challenge for the legal system. Law, by its nature, is always slow to adapt to changes. The Internet revolution changed everything. Developments moved at such a rapid pace that the law couldn't keep up. In many ways, any legal system is somewhat medieval in its thinking. Legal systems have their basis in that time period. Germany and Italy leading the way with the first organized civil codes, and England establishing its common law system. The main difference between the systems is that under the common law system, the courts are allowed to created precedence, which can overrule a law until the legislature passes a new one. Whereas, under the Civil Law system, the legislature cannot be overruled for every citizen, only the one who challenges the statute in court. If memory serves me correctly. I think both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. The free exchange of ideas, through the marketplace of ideas is the greatest gift humanity possesses. It is also one that can easily be trumped by over-zealous governments. All one has to do is look at how China clamps down on Internet Service Providers and search engines. The same is true of several Middle Eastern governments. Mental illness is another factor in all of this. There was a time when the law looked upon those with mental illness as almost subhuman. Indeed, Justice Holmes, the one mentioned in my previous post, supported eugenics to prevent those suffering from mental illness from polluting the pure minded. In Buck v. Bell , 274 U.S. 200 1927, Holmes argued We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. The Court upheld a statute requiring compulsory sterilization of the unfit for the protection and health of the state. As we can see, the United States had some dangerous legal thinking in the early twentieth century. In that time, Mr. Elonis would have not only been imprisoned, if they deemed him unfit of mind, they could have sterilized him too. Therefore, it's not that far of a stretch to cast a weary eye upon the forces of government. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and what may be good intentions today, could be horrible travesties tomorrow. Now at least, we know that mental instability can be treated to varying degrees. Treatment should be the main focus, but the law in question here is outdated. State governments have responded by updating their codes, but the Federal government has not yet. This may be the area upon which the case turns, but we shall see. The Roberts Court has surprised me on multiple different cases. Thus, we find ourselves in the midst of one of those complex legal and moral dilemmas. How much do we risk the few to protect the many? Where do we draw the line for free speech as opposed to order and safety? I don't think we will ever have a solid answer for it. Law is a process, it must constantly be challenged, in order to maintain a balance. When the balance is lost, tyranny stands in its stead.