Source: http://ugtimes.com/2014/06/opinion/in-defense-of-awful-speech/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:12:49+00:00

Document:
Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that, in all honesty, should be straightforward. Elonis v. United States serves as a testament to our technology-overloaded times: a man, Anthony Elonis, wrote terrible, awful, disgusting threats about his now ex-wife on his Facebook page; the ex-wife justifiably freaked out and went to the police; and a lower court doled out a forty-four month sentence. Cue the squealing Free Speech advocates—including myself.
To me, at least, this is an open-and-shut case. While Elonis did write some capital-H horrifying statements, he has as much a right to say them as I do to say, “I love dogs!” The Supreme Court has an obligation to be absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment; if the Justices don’t uphold the rights that define us as Americans, they corrode the fabric of our national self-identity. That sounds melodramatic, but our rights are woven throughout American culture. We hold ourselves up to be “The Land of Liberty”, “The Home of the Free and the Brave”, and “The Last Great Bastion of Freedom.” Just turn on any country music station—you can’t get through more than four songs without hearing praise for the United States as a free nation. Freedom might not be free, but it is our signature characteristic. The Supreme Court must do what it can to uphold it.
And if somebody as obviously troubled as Elonis can recognize the injustice in this situation, you know we’ve got a problem.
This case would be entirely different if Elonis had spoken these statements aloud. Had he said horrible words in public, I’m convinced our legal system would leave him alone. But social media complicates and convolutes our justice system. After all, it’s hard to make Constitution-based rulings on cases involving technology that our Founding Fathers never could have imagined.
But this case, and the attention it’s receiving, pokes at a deeper impulse of our modern culture. It hints at the panic of a society that wakes up nearly every morning and reads about a shooting. As a nation, we’ve watched terror strike at those who attempt the most innocent of actions, from going to school to running a marathon. And every time a tragedy unfolds, we point fingers at our law-and-order system and demand to know why the offenders were not stopped.
Frankly, we’re better than this. America is better than this. We need to rise above our fear, to cut through the hectic fog of our era and at least try to see clearly. Sometimes, it’s not enough to have good intentions; we need to protect speech in its entirety, out loud or online, as long as it does not directly put anyone in danger (and there’s no evidence that Elonis’s statements themselves endangered his wife). The Supreme Court needs to overturn the ruling on this case—not for Elonis’s sake, but for ours.
Bitte gebt bei bachelorarbeit schreiben in einer woche der anmeldung an, welche vorlesung ihr besuchen wollt was geschieht aber, wenn der abstand zwischen zwei punkten auf eine ganz andere art gemessen wird.
This article ignored, out of ignorance or intent, seemingly all of the legal arguments in this case.
were true threats, as needed. In addition, the court held that the jury instruction presuming communications over the internet were transmitted through interstate commerce was supported by the precedent in United States v. MacEwan. The court also stated the objective intent standard conformed with Third Circuit precedent.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), the definition of a true threat is when “a defendant intentionally makes a statement in a context or under such circumstances wherein 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 injury or take the life of an individual.” And this is what the jury found.
The case I assume you’d use to defend your position is the one Elonis is using Virginia v. Black when you say “Had he said horrible words in public, I’m convinced our legal system would leave him alone.” however, in Virginia v. Black the Court considered a Virginia statute that banned burning a cross with the “intent of intimidating” and provided “any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.” 538 U.S. at 348, 123 S.Ct. 1536 and in Watts v. United States, supra, at 708 [89 S.Ct. 1399] that “political hyperbole” is not a true threat, citing R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S., at 388 [112 S.Ct. 2538]. I’d be interestd in hearing why the 2 of his 5 criminal statements given above look like “political hyperbole”, which would be what is exempted from the true threat test.
If you agree that they’re not political, the true threats exception requires a subjective intent to threaten. How is that done? First, the prima facie evidence provision did not allow the factfinder to consider the context to construe the meaning of the conduct, id. at 365-66, 123 S.Ct. 1536, whereas the reasonable person standard does encompass context to determine whether the statement was a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm. But, according to the that is not an issue here because the government had to prove that a reasonable person would foresee Elonis’s statements would be understood as threats.
The First Amendment and speech in the United States is an intricate and fascinating subject and it’s a shame there are articles that promote uninformed arguments like this one.
Ryan Hopkins﻿, this article was not an attempt to dissect the legal precedent of the case. Instead, it was a principled response to the idea of limiting free speech (in other words, it’s an opinion piece about civil rights, regardless of whether there is ample precedent through which SCOTUS could uphold the Circuit Court’s decision). I also find that most of your comment is blatant plagiarism of the Circuit Court’s decision (https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-elonis-2#.U6tPt41dVy8). If you’re going to engage in academic discussion, please do not represent another’s work as your own without due credit.
So the article was basically saying “I support absolute free expression” without any backing besides “It’s part of our culture and heritage” and using that idea to write an article why the Supreme Court should decide a case a certain way?
I intended for the quoted parts (most of it) to be hyperlinked to the opinion text, but obviously that didn’t work as I was transferring the text, so here are thesources.
Yes, in a similar fashion to most people without law degrees, the author was using his or her views of American values and Constitutional principles to take a stance on a Supreme Court decision…I’m not sure what’s objectionable about that.
I have to agree with Ryan. Though I applaud the aspirational quality of this piece (not to mention its great writing), it does not actually acknowledge or incorporate First Amendment jurisprudence. Elonis also presents significant policy implications that will likely weave into the oral arguments and briefs brought before SCOTUS. Unfortunately, such policy implications were similarly ignored in this piece.
The author implies that the 1A provides a blanket protection. In reality, there are gradations of speech–some protected, quasi-protected, and others not protected at all. Examples of unprotected speech include defamation and obscenity. Quasi-protected speech includes commercial speech (eg. advertising and the like). The question I imagine the Court will address in Elonis is whether the type of speech in question (containing brutal and graphic threats directed towards the spouse) falls in its own category of quasi-protected or even unprotected speech. If the Court finds this to be the case, then a powerfully sweeping protection of the speech in question would not be applied.
The grave policy implications of this case also merit discussion. Unfortunately this piece completely omits a huge concern animated by Elonis, which highlights the poignant problem of cyber-bulling, hate crimes, and egregious sexual harassment published on the internet forum. Gender issues feature prominently as the incidences of violence threatened against women online have become outrageously commonplace and frightening. I have attached a great article by Jessica Valenti (a columnist for the Guardian) who speaks more eloquently on the matter. I hope this helps! At any rate, thank you for sharing your piece with us and inciting this informative discussion. This is the type of valuable speech the Amendment aims to protect (the “marketplace of ideas,” if you will), not Elonis’ hateful, violent, and threatening speech. Cheers!

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 875
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.