On June 1, 2015,
in the state of Pennsylvania, there was a very big controversial issue that occurred when a man was left by his wife and posted saying on Facebook that
crossed the line of free speech. These messages were considered vicious and
were also considered a threat. This was the first time that the Supreme Court
would take up a case of free speech over something that was posted on a social
media site. Some of the posts that he wrote said, “There’s one way to love you
but a thousand ways to kill you” (CNN). Another one of his postings said,
“Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous
school shooting ever imagined” (CNN). These were two examples of the postings.
Although he claimed that there was no proof that he planned on actually doing
those things, the U.S. Government still considered this a threat and therefore
arrested him.
The
man’s lawyer was saying that he believed that his client was using his freedom
of speech. His lawyer stated, “The First Amendment’s basic command is that the
government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society
finds it offensive or disagreeable” (CNN). His lawyer also claimed that he was
posting these because he was an artist and was encouraged by Eminem.
The
court proved him guilty, saying that he knew what the meaning of his words were
and that these were very serious posts and not posts that would be taken
lightly by people. In Lewis’s book, Freedom
For The Thought That We Hate, he mentions that, “Our constitution was never
intended to protect malice, scandal, and defamation when untrue or published
with bad motives or without justifiable ends. It a shield for the honest,
careful and conscientious press” (Lewis 44). These statements are statements of
bad motives, which is exactly what the constitution does not protect.
No comments:
Post a Comment