High court weighs posts on Facebook By SAM HANANEL Associated Press WASHINGTON - From the violent lyrics of rap music to the crude comments of teenagers in video-game chat rooms, the Supreme Court struggled Monday over where to draw the line between free speech and illegal threats in the digital age. The justices considered the case of a Pennsylvania man convicted of posting violent threats on Facebook - in the form of rap lyrics - about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a school and slitting the throat of an FBI agent. Lawyers for Anthony Elonis say he didnt mean to threaten anyone. They contend his posts under the pseudonym Tone Dougie were simply a way for him to vent his frustration over splitting up with his wife. The government argues the proper test is not what Elonis intended, but whether his words would make a reasonable person feel threatened. Thats the standard a jury used in convicting him under a federal law barring threats of violence. Some justices seemed concerned that the governments position is too broad and risks sweeping in language protected by the First Amendment. But there seemed to be little agreement over what standard to use. How does one prove whats in somebody elses mind? asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was on the bench five days after she had a stent implanted to clear a blocked artery. Elonis attorney John Elwood said the speakers intent could be determined by searching computer records, cell phone records and other evidence of context. He said many speakers being prosecuted are teenagers who are essentially shooting off their mouths and making sort of ill-timed, sarcastic comments which wind up getting them thrown in jail. As a recent example, he cited a teenager prosecuted for making sarcastic comments in a video-game chat room about shooting up a kindergarten after another teen called him crazy. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested the governments standard simply would be whether a reasonable person familiar with teenagers in video-game chat rooms would view it as a threat. But Elwood said everyone has a different view of context and the better standard is looking at what the speaker intended. Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether Eloniss comments about causing physical harm in the context of a marital dispute deserve First Amendment protection. He said the governments standard doesnt eliminate a whole lot of speech at all. The Supreme Court has said 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. Justice Elena Kagan asked whether there should be a buffer zone under the First Amendment to ensure that even stuff that is wrongful maybe is permitted because we dont want to chill innocent behavior. Roberts wondered about rap stars like Eminem, who has used graphic language about killing his ex-wife that may be misinterpreted as a threat. You know, Da-da make a nice bed for mommy at the bottom of the lake, Roberts said, quoting an Eminem song. Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben, representing the government, said a jury can look at the context in which comments are made. Eminems lyrics are sung at a concert where people go to be entertained, he said.
Posted on: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:24:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015