Should all online threats lead to time in prison? According to the Supreme Court, simply reporting a threat posted by someone on the internet is no longer enough to put them in jail, as the Supreme Court just overturned the 2011 conviction of Anthony Elonis. A Pennsylvania native, Elonis was sentenced to jail after posting multiple threats toward his wife, co-workers, and elementary schools in the form of lyrics on Facebook. He claimed to use these posts as therapeutic methods to cope with his depression. However, due to their violent nature, he was convicted for violating a federal threat statute. Elonis appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing that the government should have been required to prove he truly had an intent to act on these threats before sentencing him to a 44 month term in jail. That argument convinced the Supreme Court–but what does it mean for online communication moving forward?

With this ruling, the Supreme Court says courts must consider the defendant’s state of mind and whether he intended to actually do wrong. This simply means that there must be some proof that the defendant intended to follow through on what he was posting. The court gave a 7-2 opinion but did not set a clear standard for what constitutes this intent to act out these threats. There are questions of whether this will potentially create uncertainties during future trials. In fact, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. believe that this opinion is more confusing than enlightening. Thomas wrote, “This failure to decide throws everyone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty.”

This is a very tricky case with two sides to it. Something that is posted online may very well be taken out of context, but there is also a good chance that someone who has intent to cause harm to others will not be seen as guilty in a courtroom due to the lack of proof. Michele M. Garcia, director of the Stalker Resource Center, stated,

This decision fails to recognize that victims of stalking experience fear regardless of the offender’s intent. If what constitutes a threat is not clearly defined, our concern is that this ruling provides enormous space for stalkers and abusers to act.

Mai Fernandez, executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, described the internet as “the crime scene of the 21st century. Kim Gandy, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, stated,

Threats play a central role in domestic abuse and is a core tactic that many abusers employ, regardless of whether the abuser intended to threaten or only intended to vent or to make a joke.

I can’t help but wonder if this decision will help people who do plan to harm others avoid prison?  There is a big concern that this will let internet abusers get around the law by writing hateful posts that “technically” are not threats but are still frightening to others. This decision may make it much more difficult to prosecute those whose posts are a precursor to violence that is going to take place. Only time will tell if this decision by the Supreme Court was beneficial or harmful for those dealing with internet threats.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anthony Elonis’s Conviction Overturned: Are Online Threats Now Fair Game? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of speech is one of our rights in the United States, and it is guaranteed by the First Amendment. So it is hard to believe that something like social media that a majority of us use every day, could be the exception to the rule that we can say what we want to say without fear of backlash. In general, there are exceptions that prevent hate speech, defamation, and threats. Some of these aren’t legal, just frowned upon by the society at large, while others can get someone in trouble. Social media sites allow for the spread of all types of speech, from spoken word pieces on sites like YouTube, to shorter phrases said in 140 characters on Twitter. The publication of negative speech has some positive and negative consequences. We’ve seen them play out in the last few years with events in Ferguson, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and every major election.

It is difficult, however, to choose which pieces of speech are worthy of protection from action and which can be used against someone in legal proceedings. Not everything said on social media can be taken at face value. What one person deems as offensive and disturbing may incite a different emotion in another person. Striking a balance between unfiltered free speech, political correctness, and censorship is difficult. Censoring what is allowed on social media may seem like it goes against our Constitutional Rights, but allowing a free-for-all on speech can lead to threats, bullying, and hate speech.

Social Media’s Impact

Speech is not, nor has it ever been, a completely good vs. evil situation. There is so much more behind a string of text than just the literal meaning of the words. This is what makes it so difficult to decide who and what has a right to be on social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr. Some countries, like North Korea, Iran, China, Pakistan, and Turkey, have completely blocked their citizens’ access to social media sites as a way to ward off the problem. They operate under the theory that if you take away the cause, you won’t have to worry about it.

Many websites and apps do have “report” features so that a user can alert the webmasters that something has gone wrong. This begs the question, if someone says something terrible on social media, and it is reported but nothing happens, who is responsible for the fall out? It’s an increasingly important topic across the world; this isn’t just limited to the United States.

City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon, et al

In 2009, the Supreme Court of California heard a case that discussed the rights to free speech in text messaging between employees. Employees of the City of Ontario, California filed a claim in district court against the police department, city, chief of police, and an internal affairs officer. They believed that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when their text messages on city-issued pagers were reviewed. The city did not have a text-messaging policy; however, it did have a general “Computer Usage, Internet, and E-mail” policy. Those employees felt as if that particular section did not cover their pagers. The court held that the city employees had a right to privacy in their text messages because there was no specific language about text messaging in the city’s policy.

This, along with several other cases about Cloud privacy has prompted many to ask the question: are Supreme Court justices too out of the loop to fully understand the severity of the problem? Most–though admittedly not all–Justices don’t interact with social media to a great extent. Perhaps one or two may have a Twitter account, but those are often controlled by members of their team. President Obama, who is largely considered more modern with technology, is the first sitting President to have a Twitter account, but there are questions about just who actually runs it.

 Anthony Elonis v. United States

This case concerns a Pennsylvania man, Anthony Elonis, and his post of violence-filled rap lyrics aimed toward his ex-wife. He didn’t use his own name, but rather the pseudonym Tone Dougie. His rap suggested that he should use his wife’s “head on a stick” in his Halloween costume. He used images that haunt the public mind, saying that he was going to terrorize a school as “Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.” Some of the other lyrics were extremely troubling:

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, bitch, 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 slut.

He also rapped about killing federal agents. Tara Elonis, his ex-wife, felt threatened by the song. The court had to judge “whether the threatening speaker intended to harm anyone or whether the listener was genuinely afraid of being harmed.” Nancy Leong pointed out in the Huffington Post that, “because the Internet filters out voice and demeanor cues, online statements provide less information about the seriousness of the statement, and are thus more likely to be reasonably interpreted as threats.“

Elonis didn’t seem to be too upset at first, posting on Facebook: “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 … I also found out 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 the cornfield behind it …”

The case is ongoing and it has incited intense emotions from both sides of the fence.

The Good

What are the benefits of having freedom of expression on social media? Surely, it is a way for some people to vent their anger without feeling self-conscious, nervous, or upset without resorting to violent actions. Everyone has a right to say what they think. We’ll never know, thankfully, if Elonis would have followed through on the threats in his rap.

Retweets, liking, or even posting your own status can be as effective as screaming at the top of your lungs at a protest. Lately, Facebook has been full of posts that educated everyone on topics relating to racism and the plight of African Americans in modern day America. There are always a few feminist pieces floating around. LGBTQ statuses, articles, and debate appear often, as well. Looking into the comments of these pieces, it is easy to see a cross section of what people believe about the topic. After all, the best way to argue for something is to know why people are arguing against it.

Social media has also become a home to those people who post positive things about topics from body-positive Instagram campaigns to equal media representation groups on Tumblr.

The Bad

To quote Uncle Ben from Spiderman: With great power, comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, many people do not understand their responsibility to fellow man. People who don’t believe in the status quo (or those who believe in the previous status quo that is now shifting to another) can stir up some pretty harsh feelings. People have the right to believe whatever they want, but these more extreme views on politics, racism, sexism, and homosexuality can start verbal sparring matches that help no one.

People have been using social media to post threats that haven’t been taken seriously for years. Stricter online controls would help alert the authorities in some cases, and even protect the innocent. Social media can be used for internet bullying, which in some cases is worse than the traditional verbal bullying. Online gossiping and social media platforms allow the bullying to continually exist–a problem for both the bully and the bullied.

Conclusion

Social media is one of the best inventions of the last century. It allows us to stay in contact with people we would have left behind, and it allows us to preserve our memories in a time capsule. However, it can also make or break a person depending on how someone reacts. Truthfully, the problem isn’t a freedom of speech issue, but rather one of morality. Can we take morals and apply them to the virtual world?

Resources

Primary

Supreme Court: City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon et al

Constitution: First Amendment

Constitution: Fourth Amendment

Additional

Slate: Are Facebook Threats Real?

Huffington Post: Constitutional Rights in the Digital Age

The New York Times: Do Online Death Threats Count as Free Speech?

Salon: The Supreme Court’s baffling tech illiteracy is becoming a problem

Business Insider: This Guy’s Facebook Rants Put Him In Prison, And The Supreme Court Will Hear His Case Today

Truth Out: This Time, “Free Speech” Cannot Prevail

ABA: United States v. Anthony Elonis – Third Circuit

Index on Censorship: 10 Countries that have Social Media Banned

The New York Times: Chief Justice Samples Eminem in Online Threats Case

First Amendment Center: Social Networking

Bloomberg: The 8 Most Important Cases in the New Supreme Court Term

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Freedom of Speech and Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

The UVA Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is headed to the Supreme Court next term to defend Anthony D. Elonis, the New York man who posted rap lyrics to Facebook describing how he would kill his estranged wife. (If you’re not familiar with the case, click here to read my take on it.)

The main question in Elonis v. United States centers on First Amendment rights–when do threats made online become true threats, which aren’t protected by the First Amendment? Specifically in Elonis’s case, the court will be examining Facebook statuses in which he posted threatening “rap lyrics.” Select UVA Law students will take a stab at presenting Elonis’s defense.

The UVA Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is a one year program offered to third-year law students. Admitted students earn eight credits through participation, but even more valuable is the experience they gain. Once accepted to the clinic, students actively participate in live cases and must meet high expectations.

Working in teams, students handle actual cases from the seeking of Supreme Court review to briefing on the merits. Classes meet every week to discuss drafts of briefs and other papers students have prepared for submission to the court. Students will be expected to identify candidates for Supreme Court review; draft petitions for certiorari, amicus merits briefs and party merits briefs; and attend mootings and Supreme Court arguments.

In addition to providing invaluable experience to our nation’s future legal force, the UVA Law clinic grants students the opportunity to work on a pivotal case. The Supreme Court will debate whether Elonis’s Facebook posts can actually fall under the category of true threats–meaning that he intended to carry out the actions he wrote about. But Elonis’s lawyers artfully defended his case by stating he was rapping, therefore claiming First Amendment protection.

One of the clinic’s instructors, John P. Elwood, described the case as highly relevant because of our increased reliance on electronic communication. Furthermore, he made the point that electronically communicating with strangers may lead to miscommunication more often. Elwood says the ambiguity surrounding true threats has been a mess since the 2003 Virginia v. Black case, in which the Supreme Court attempted to create more specific guidelines for defining them.

I maintain my opinion, this guy is scary–if I were the ex-wife he had threatened I’d want a sense of security and protection too. There may be UVA students who also sympathize with her, but are defending Elonis with the clinic. Unfortunately for them, as a lawyer you don’t always get to choose who you defend. A lawyer’s duty is to defend her client to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of her personal beliefs. It will be valuable for those students to learn that lesson early, because sometimes it’s a hard pill to swallow. For example, when Hillary Clinton was a court-appointed attorney in 1975, she defended a 41-year-old man who was accused of raping 12-year-old girl. It must have been tough, and her political foes are now using it to attack her, but the important thing is that she did her job as a lawyer. The UVA students may have the opportunity to practice that kind of ethical dilemma when they argue on behalf of Elonis.

Elonis v. United States is the eleventh case the UVA clinic will defend in the Supreme Court since its establishment in 2006. And while the academic and legal experience is highly valuable, one other aspect should not be forgotten–legal ethics. That’s exactly what sets the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic apart from the rest–practicing legal ethics in a pivotal case. These twenty-somethings are in for quite a ride; their participation in our highest court could make history!

The University of Virginia School of Law staff did not comment as of press time.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Mmw3v via English Wikipedia]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UVA Law Clinic Takes on Controversial Anthony Elonis Case appeared first on Law Street.