Elonis v. United States 575 U.S. ___ (2015)
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
13 – 983 Argued December 1, 2014 – Decided June 1, 2015
Apples to:
First Amendment
Facts:
After his wife left him, Anthony Elonis used Facebook to post his own rap lyrics. Along with his wife, his co-worker, boss, a kindergarten class, and an FBI agent were all mentioned in his lyrics. These people deemed his words to be “threatening” and Elonis was convicted. Elonis petitioned for an appeal and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed his conviction. The District Court had ruled under the pretense that his lyrics proved to be a “true threat” which was not protected by the First Amendment and required only the objective intent to threaten, or if a reasonable person would feel threatened. Elonis argued that a subjective intent proving that his intent was to harm was required. The …show more content…
In his argument, the majority ruling of this case overturns the rulings of all of the other circuit courts and also leaves uncertainty between whether intent to threaten is required and if recklessness is adequate. Thomas believed that posting the threats only is enough knowledge to be considered clear intent.
Precedent/Point of Law/Analysis:
The consequences of this case ruling are that there is inconsistency and uncertainty as to how to decide whether something is considered to be a threat and there are now new stipulations on social media sites regarding what you can and cannot post. I believe that there is a difference between expressing one’s self and implementing ideas. Although the content of the Facebook posts may have been threatening, there was no evidence of any action being taken to harm or plan to harm
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
13 – 983 Argued December 1, 2014 – Decided June 1, 2015
Apples to:
First Amendment
Facts:
After his wife left him, Anthony Elonis used Facebook to post his own rap lyrics. Along with his wife, his co-worker, boss, a kindergarten class, and an FBI agent were all mentioned in his lyrics. These people deemed his words to be “threatening” and Elonis was convicted. Elonis petitioned for an appeal and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed his conviction. The District Court had ruled under the pretense that his lyrics proved to be a “true threat” which was not protected by the First Amendment and required only the objective intent to threaten, or if a reasonable person would feel threatened. Elonis argued that a subjective intent proving that his intent was to harm was required. The …show more content…
In his argument, the majority ruling of this case overturns the rulings of all of the other circuit courts and also leaves uncertainty between whether intent to threaten is required and if recklessness is adequate. Thomas believed that posting the threats only is enough knowledge to be considered clear intent.
Precedent/Point of Law/Analysis:
The consequences of this case ruling are that there is inconsistency and uncertainty as to how to decide whether something is considered to be a threat and there are now new stipulations on social media sites regarding what you can and cannot post. I believe that there is a difference between expressing one’s self and implementing ideas. Although the content of the Facebook posts may have been threatening, there was no evidence of any action being taken to harm or plan to harm