The media are constantly changing and it is apparent that the law has not yet caught up.
Social media sites such as: Facebook, Twitter, etc. enable anyone to access and post a world of personal information within a few simple clicks. This freedom often leads to complications which address the First Amendment.
An issue that has arisen recently is whether or not posts on Facebook or other internet sites can be protected under the First Amendment. The law has yet to determine whether or not a post is equivalent to speech. An article on http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org addresses a case from 2010 involving a man, Anthony Elonis, who was posting threatening death messages on Facebook about his wife and others. Elonis appeared in court and was sentenced to four years for his actions.
The issue is whether or not those posts can be considered verbal threats and receive the same type of punishment. We discussed the First Amendment in class and it clearly states: “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.” This is where the law has not yet caught up with the times. The First Amendment does not address online speech.
However, verbal threats are punishable under law and threats online should be punished under law as well. The opinion of the court in this case, found in the brief, United States v. Anthony Douglas Elonis noted: “In United States v. Kosma, 951 F.2d 549, 557(3d Cir. 1991) we held a statement is a true threat when a reasonable speaker would foresee the statement would be interpreted as a threat.”
So essentially, if it looks like a threat, acts like a threat, walks like a threat, it is a threat. A threat is a threat whether it is posted on facebook, said out loud or written down in a letter and should thus be punished as such.
According to the brief found at http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/123798p.pdf “Elonis was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for “transmit[ting] in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another . . . .’” Any type of post online or on the internet is considered speech. People should do not be allowed to hide behind their computers and make threats to the world without being held accountable for their actions.
I think it is indeed interesting that American law and the Supreme Court have not yet determined if online publications (in the form of posts, comments, blogs, et cetera) can be protected under the First Amendment and equate the definition of speech as we traditionally know it and think of it. Hopefully, with the hearing of Elonis v. United States this term, the Supreme Court will illuminate such issues and/or set a clear precedent. Given the increase use of internet and social media and the way in which it appears to become even more grounded in our lives, one could have predicted the emergence of such a case in the form of Elonis and it may not seem too farfetched to assume that another may reach the Supreme Court. Although the case is to be heard in front of a lower court, I think that the Justin Carter case – the boy who wrote on Facebook how he would “shoot up a kindergarten” - suggests that online speech is taken very seriously. After all, he was charged with making a terrorist threat, put in jail while awaiting his trial and his bond was set at 250,000 dollars and later even 500,000 dollars. He could face up to ten years in prison. Similarly, Elonis’ sentence implies the same. While Carter’s case has not been decided yet and one may argue that the charges are ridiculous, I do think it is good that internet threats are taken seriously and not dismissed. I agree wholeheartedly with you that “any type of post online or on the internet is considered speech.” The difference is the medium, but I do not think that it being the internet is a valid reason to ignore potential “true threats.” After all, the concepts of speech and expression are broad ones and not limited to one medium. Furthermore, the possibility of remaining anonymous only strengthens this view, in my opinion. Being able to state unlawful “true threats” anonymously without reprisal may be dangerous and inspire copy cat behavior. Therefore, I consider it essential that online speech is recognized as being equivalent to traditional speech and never dismissed or ridiculed. Like you argued, Katherine, an online threat ought to be handled like any other threat regardless of its source or the medium.
ReplyDelete