Elonis vs. United States Raises First Amendment Questions

In December of 2014, the Supreme Court will hear a case titled Elonis v. United States. Elonis v. United States is an important First Amendment challenge that is facing a major First amendment issue of modern times; specifically, whether or not Internet threats are to be taken seriously. This case will once and for all decide whether violent threats over Facebook, or other social media outlets, are a First Amendment right. The defendant, who allegedly was exhibiting strange behavior at work and in public, posted rap lyrics he had written that threatened his wife and an FBI agent that was investigating him, and referenced other violent things, such as school shootings. Elonis was convicted by a Pennsylvania Federal Court to approximately three and a half years in prison, but appealed on an argument of First Amendment Rights.  

Elonis has made the argument that his themes in his rap lyrics are common in all rap music, and that rap music is a form of protest. Though his lyrics were in fact violent, it is true that themes in rap songs often take the violent tone that Elonis did. It is also a fact that music has traditionally been recognized as a form of protest, and, furthermore, violent and illegal rap lyrics are posted all over the internet. It seems that limiting Elonis’ rights does in fact violate a form of protest and freedom of expression.

Read more about the case at these links:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/06/elonis_v_united_states_supreme_court_will_hear_the_facebook_speech_case.html

http://newsinpenn.com/facebook-posts-prompt-supreme-court-review/

by Caitlin Pond

Facebook posts, free speech to collide at Supreme Court-Amber Fleet

Facebook posts, free speech to collide at Supreme Court

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

In this article, describes the current case of Anthony Elonis who was sentenced to forty four months in prison by a federal court over the Facebook postings that he posted on his personal account back in May of 2010. The postings were of him saying that he “I want to kill my wife”, and a picture of him with a knife over his coworker at a Halloween party with the caption “I wish”. Of course Mr. Elonis’ posts seemed to be threating however he states in the article that “Art is about pushing limits. I’m willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights. Are you?” Most people see that the government is stealing or trying to limit our right to Freedom of Speech. However, should not a person have the right to voice their opinions on all mediums, whether it is vocal, in writing, or visually?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/16/us/court-free-speech-internet/index.html?iref=allsearch

The question that all Americans are starting to ask when it comes to the U.S government and how it deals with people speaking out on issues they believe in. In "Freedom for the thought we Hate" written by Anthony Lewis, it states that  "The makers of the our Constitution...recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings and his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations." (69) This shows that Americans should have the Freedom to write or verbalize their feelings or opinions no matter what, they are protected.  However, the government is going over and above when dealing with this new age of technology. They do not know how to regulate crimes when dealing with the internet. For example, "Cyber-Bullying", this is a term that has just been recently defined and made into an issue. Cyber-bullying is a person or group of people harass another individual or group over the internet by social media or email or other technology. The government does not yet have the laws to keep up with this fast paced technology, so there is not a specific way to actually prosecute someone. 

Based on this article I think that Mr. Ellonis had the right to say his feelings even though they made the people who interacted with him on the internet feel uncomfortable, however this is when the harm principle could come in to affect. The principle that was learned in the reading of Freedom of Speech, the book that helped educate us on the fact that we can over look things that we do not particularly care for.

 

Amber Fleet 

Giant Inflatable Rats, Labor Disputes, and the First Amendment

Mascots have proven to have a large impact in our society today. Typically, we associate mascots with our favorite athletic teams, respectively.  Seldom do we imagine the use of mascots outside of this context, but for nearly 25 years a giant inflatable Rat has been the mascot for both workers and their rights. Recently, a New York court ruled that the use of "Scabby the Rat" by Labor Unions striking was, indeed, protected by the first amendment. The vindication of Scabby is a huge win for the morale of Labor Unions across the country, which in the past 30 to 40 years has not enjoyed the same bargaining power that they once did. Interestingly, the article provides a Supreme Court ruling in which the difference between free speech in the abstract and picketing (or striking more generally) are separated. It reads, “’Picketing by an organized group is more than free speech, since it involves patrol of a particular locality and since the very presence of a picket line may induce action of one kind or another, quite irrespective of the nature of the ideas which are being disseminated,’ said Justice William Douglas in a concurring opinion in the Bakery Drivers Local case.” It is important to recognize the act of labor as a type of speech, which must remain inside and not outside of the public discourse today.

If you would like, look to Lochner v. New York (1905) to begin to understand how Labor is defined by the court and the liberties associated with this topic.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/11/even-giant-rats-have-constitutional-first-amendment-rights/

Guardian report: FBI seeks new computer survelliance powers

The government threat to free expression: A British newspaper, The Guardian, reported last week that the FBI is seeking new powers "to hack into and carry out surveillance of computers in the U.S. and throughout the world." According to civil liberties groups cited by the paper, this power represents "a power grab by the agency that would ride roughshod over strict limits to searches and seizures laid out under the fourth amendment of the U.S. constitution, as well as violating first amendment privacy rights."

The FBI request is part of a proposed change in its rules of engagement that critics say is an unconstitutional power grab. The newspaper quoted Ahmed Ghappour, an expert in computer law at UC Hastings college of law, who said, "This is a giant step forward for the FBI's operational capabilities…." To be seeking these powers at a time of heightened international concern about U.S. surveillance is an especially brazen and potentially dangerous move."

Under the proposed rule change, a judge can issue a warrant that will allow the FBI to hack into any computer no matter where it is located. Critics say this capability will give a green light for the FBI to hack into any computer in the country or around the world.

A link to the Guardian story is here.

Principles and discussion: This is an extremely troubling report because it expands the federal government's power to spy on U.S. citizens. Indeed, the critics cited by the Guardian find this extremely alarming. This kind of government surveillance, even if it's motivated by legitimate anti-terrorism concerns, appears excessive. As Geoffrey Stone notes in War and Liberty, the Fourth Amendment is supposed to guarantee "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches…" (xvi). On the face of it, the new FBI powers appear very broad and easily abused, which is cause for concern. Moreover, as Lewis notes in Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, President George W. Bush "secretly ordered wiretapping of Americans' international telephone calls without obtaining the warrants required by law" (151). In short, the federal government in recent years has increased (and abused) its powers to spy on Americans and, at the same time, repeatedly failed to protect the civil liberties of citizens guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments.

--Submitted by John Coward

Free Expression and Popular Opinion: Cases and Principles

In Freedom for the Thought We Hate, Anthony Lewis makes the point that free speech is not always popular. In fact, Lewis writes, "Some of the greatest judicial opinions have run against popular opinion—as did those of [Justice] Holmes and Brandeis when they dissented from the punishment of radical speech" (p. 180). For this final blog post, briefly describe and explain one Supreme Court case that has been at odds with popular opinion. Note: To assist you in this task, refer to the "Table of Cases" in the Lewis book, pp. 193-195.

Write about 200-250 words (about 13-15 sentences). As noted above, your task is to (1) describe the most important facts of the case you select and (2) explain how and why the decision in this case was unpopular.

This assignment is due by midnight on Tuesday, November 27. We will discuss these cases in our class on Wednesday at 2 p.m. See you then.

The First Amendment: An Unfinished Tale

In his book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, Anthony Lewis traces the back-and-forth nature of First Amendment freedoms. "Ours is the most outspoken society on earth," he writes on the first page of the Introduction. Yet Lewis also notes that U.S. history is littered with restrictions on free speech, actions that have not lived up to the high ideals and liberties of the First Amendment.

For this blog assignment, read Lewis' Introduction as well as Chapters 1-5. From these chapters, identify one significant example of a failure of the First Amendment to protect the free expression rights of the citizens. Briefly explain the facts and First Amendment issues of your case and answer these questions: (1) Why did this breech of the First Amendment occur at the time it occurred? and (2) What is the significance of this case for us today?

Write about 250 words (about 14 sentences) for this post. Cite specifics from the reading to support your examples and strengthen your arguments. See you Monday.

Michael Thomas

Feigning Free Speech on Campus

In this article, Greg Lukianoff reports on the poor state that our first amendment right is represented in Universities. While in classrooms, students are taught the purity of the right to speak our minds and the struggles that had to have been endured to obtain this right. But the moment we leave the classrooms, our rights are stunted in such a way that, in the more private universities, we are less likely to say something or even, in the case of the Yale T-shirts, poke fun at the other universities without offending people of a certain demographic. Even though it was F. Scott Fitzgerald, who originally said, “I think of all Harvard men as sissies,” the students of Yale University were restricted from putting this quote on a Tshirt to wear to the annual Yale vs. Harvard football game. Freedom of expression is a double edges sword in that, if we are to promote it within a classroom, then we shouldn’t stop at the door.

Feigning Free Speech on Campus