To briefly sum up the article; Anthony Eloniswas convicted of making threats of violence and sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison. The threats were in the form of Facebook wall posts on his own personal facebook wall, however the posts were view-able by his ex-wife and others. Due to the extreme nature of the "posts" his wife reported him to authorities, as she was in fear for her life. The man continued to post violent threats about a female FBI agent after a visit to check into the threats.
The question here to the community is this - At what point do we cross the line between defending freedom of speech and prosecuting legitimate threats to others?
Do you think the courts ruled properly here in this case?
In my personal opinion i think posting to any social network or website in a Publicly accessible manner is no different from running down the street talking out loud. If you were to start making threats mentioning a specific person in public you would most likely be arrested or at least detained. So why do we put up with this behavior online.
That said though, where do we draw the line? We still have the constitutional, and inherent right to freedom of speech. Does this mean I can say whatever I want no matter how violent or threatening?
Please try to keep the comments and discussion clean and constructive. This is to inspire thought and conversation not cause an uproar or more anger. I will respect any opinions given.
This is very tricky territory. Many people say stupid mean shit that they don't act on. This happens both on and of the web. Anger alone can't be considered a crime. There has to be intent.
But things like sexual harassment and yelling "fire!" in a theater are not considered free or speech. The issue is context and intent which is hard to prove for either side.
At the end of the day maybe threatening to kill someone in a public forum is a pretty fucking stupid and shitty thing to do.
I agree the guy in question in the article was a complete idiot and was asking for trouble. I just thought it posed an interesting social/policy issue and was curious to see what other thought. Thanks for commenting.
I looked into this and it really seems like a big over reach, if it is a lyric, it is art, and not intention of harm.
should iLL-Bill and necro go to jail for there messed up lyrics as well.
But! will stand by, that I don't know all the details, but it really seems like a over reach of the court.
Edit: but I don't know if this guys has threatened his wife before, so maybe there is a reason for this reaction but as I said before I don't know all the details.
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.”
WTF is this shit WTF? Is this court case serious? This is a complete fucking joke. Next thing you know anyone who expresses any kind of fantastical violence in music or otherwise art is going to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. It's a complete joke.
Well you either have freedom of speach or your don't, last time I checked the only time words actually hurt someone was in defamation cases which fall under civil law and are therefore not a violation of the US constitution.
Anyway according to the majority of people in this thread, my rights end where your feelings begin, which is a very sad state of affairs.
In America, we have a "right" (as in Constitutional right) to say whatever we want. You can do it whenever and wherever you like -- within reason.
That last part, "within reason," is the tricky part. Because while you may have a right to yell "fire!" in a crowded public theater, your MOTIVES and resulting ACTIONS are what makes you culpable. Or put another way, it's what you DO that makes you guilty should something bad happen like people getting trampled to death.
So, does that mean you can't make threats? I say, no. Make all the threats you want -- it's a free country. But don't expect your threats to not have any meaning or go ignored. You'd be a fool to think otherwise unless you have a brain disorder or something. People tend to pay attention to threats.
And should your threats actually result in the harming of someone (or even their property) then I say off to jail with your sorry ass. But not until damages or immediate danger can be shown as a result -- that's the (legal) tricky part.
Bottom line: saying something in public is NOT saying it in private. The Internet never really changed that fact other than to possibly partially segregate what portion of "the public" we're talking about.
'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.'
No where in the first amendment is their the term 'within reason', that is something that you just made up. The truth is that you are arguing that my rights end where your feelings begin, because the only thing words can hurt is your feelings.
Intact you go even further and incinuate that people should have no freedom of speech anywhere where someone else can hear them.
I fully support the freedom of speech and wold defend it to my last breath, and I have already served my country via the US NAVY, however...
We have to remember to take these things into context. When the constitution was originally developed I believe the intention behind "Freedom of Speech," as you notated by copying the text, was to provide a guarantee that citizens could protest their government in times of tyranny. And at that time it was truly applicable. (Some would argue it is again today.)
I don't think the founders could have ever imagined the communication age we live in now and the anonymity of "the internet" and the complete lack in general of human respect found there.
Historically when someone wrote something slanderous about someone else, or something un-true you could be help for Libel in court and convicted.
Granted this case is not one of slander or lies, but it does put into perspective that free speech is NOT saying or writing whatever you want whenever and wherever you want. You still need to display a since of respect towards others.
As far as the idea that his statements were "lyrics" and "art" is very subjective. If I posted lyrics on my facebook page talking about killing political officials, and I wasn't actually a recording artist, just a guy who wrote lyrics, where is the line between art and threats.
In the end I think the context of the situation shows that he has malicious intent even though he had yet to act upon it. But if we just sat back and let anyone make idle threats and never acted, then eventually someone would get hurt, then the very same people screaming "free speech" would be accusing and asking "Why did you do nothing?" "This could have been prevented."
The us constitution is very clear regarding freedom of speech it says 'no law shall be passed' there is also another amendment which prohibits reinterpretation of the literal and actual meaning of the constitution which basically states that 'no part of the us constitution shall be used to nullify rights explicitly provided in other sections'.
The constitution means what it means, when it says 'no' it means no, when it says right to bear arms it means millitary armaments not the sporting rifles of your governments choosing if they allow you to even have them.
Peoples feelings or intentions have very little to do with law, the law is the law. And you either believe in peoples inalienable fundamental human rights or your don't. And things are what they are, free speech means you are free to say what you like even if it is stupid or unpopular.
Now regarding libel that is a civil case and not subject to the us constitutions restriction on the government restricting freedom of speech. Note that the supreme court is a branch of the federal government and a source of us law (common law).
I believe that freedom of expression and speech should be protected even if we do not agree with the other party's views. Because it gives us the ability to debate on issues that matter, give people the ability to write and not be afraid of book burners that do not agree with their views.
I think we must be aware of the censorship of freedom speech for the so-called "feel-good policies" that some wish to enact. But even with the best of intentions, there can be those that see an opportunity to manipulate freedom of speech to limit the playing field. There can be groups of people that feel they have the best intentions in the world, but may end up hurting themselves more than helping others.
I don't want this country to become a place where a group of people that will threaten another person or people just because of disagreement without trying to settle it in a court of law.
I think we all really need to take a step back, and remove the constitution and "freedom of speech" arguments out of this for a second.... lets put ourselves in these peoples situation...
Lets say, the Ex wife is your daughter or your sister...
Now lets say these "threats" were not investigated.... nothing happens due to freedom of speech etc...
Now YOU have bury your family member, because the authorities let this guy go free, because he had constitutional "freedom of speech"...
Who is at fault here?? The murderer?? The police?? The founding fathers??
At the end of the day, an investigation is simply that, and investigation... this man was tried and sentenced to prison for a reason... most likely, because said investigation found there was reason to believe that these threats would actually be carried out...