Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet

[longknife]

Can you go to jail for posting threats against another? That was the intent of a law that put a man in jail for claiming he was going to kill his wife. The case in question is Elonis v. United States, 13-983. It's available on the SCOTUS website but can be reviewed @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States
We all know that you can be prosecuted for similar acts made elsewhere. But, does this pose a threat to the freedom given us on the Internet. The guy used a screen name which supposedly gave him anonymity. Could the same thing happen on a discussion forum like this?
Think about it.
Read the story @ http://www.stripes.com/news/us/justices-weigh-limits-of-free-speech-over-internet-1.316623

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Internet is simply another medium for expressing whatever freedoms the Constitution grants us already. The internet doesn't extend new freedoms, it simply enables a new way of expressing certain freedoms as with speech.

If it was already deemed illegal to threaten to kill someone in person, in print, over the phone, etc. then that decision would be upheld if it took place over the internet. Nothing new but the medium took place.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

Plus, why give your intended victim advanced warning?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Internet is simply another medium for expressing whatever freedoms the Constitution grants us already.

The Constitution doesn't grant us Rights.

 

[longknife]

Internet is simply another medium for expressing whatever freedoms the Constitution grants us already.

The Constitution doesn't grant us Rights.

Right on! All the Constitution does is enumerate our God-given Rights!

 

[Derideo_Te]

We the People uphold the rights we give each other via the secular Constitution.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Internet is simply another medium for expressing whatever freedoms the Constitution grants us already.

The Constitution doesn't grant us Rights.

Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, not a separate document. They're amendments to the Constitution.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If you think you have some God-given rights, try claiming them at a trial.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Can you go to jail for posting threats against another? That was the intent of a law that put a man in jail for claiming he was going to kill his wife. The case in question is Elonis v. United States, 13-983. It's available on the SCOTUS website but can be reviewed @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States
We all know that you can be prosecuted for similar acts made elsewhere. But, does this pose a threat to the freedom given us on the Internet. The guy used a screen name which supposedly gave him anonymity. Could the same thing happen on a discussion forum like this?
Think about it.
Read the story @ [URL='http://www.stripes.com/news/us/justices-weigh-limits-of-free-speech-over-internet-1.316623[/QUOTE']http://www.stripes.com/news/us/justices-weigh-limits-of-free-speech-over-internet-1.316623[/URL]

FYI CA Penal Code:

PENAL CODE SECTION 422-422.4
422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison.
(b) For purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any
spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related
by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other
person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the
prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
(c) "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited
to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax
machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning
as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of
the United States Code.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Internet is simply another medium for expressing whatever freedoms the Constitution grants us already.

The Constitution doesn't grant us Rights.

Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, not a separate document. They're amendments to the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not Grant us Rights.

 

[Roadrunner]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

Threaten me, "I'll gut ya like a trout".

Feel threatened?

I think for any prosecution, a person would have to convince authorities they really did feel the threat was a legitimate cause for concern for their safety.

I don't think any prosecutor would waste time on an internet pissfest; stalking an ex is different.

 

[Roadrunner]

Internet is simply another medium for expressing whatever freedoms the Constitution grants us already.

The Constitution doesn't grant us Rights.

Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, not a separate document. They're amendments to the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not Grant us Rights.

Thank you.

That part is no longer taught in schools.

We are supposed to be sheeple, granted rights, and bribed into submisision by bread and circuses.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Internet is simply another medium for expressing whatever freedoms the Constitution grants us already.

The Constitution doesn't grant us Rights.

Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, not a separate document. They're amendments to the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not Grant us Rights.

They define the rights that We the People have agreed to uphold for each other.

FYI nowhere in the Bible is there any enumeration of rights. Quite the opposite in fact, the Bible condones slavery and limits freedom of speech and worship.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Expressing terroristic threats behind a moniker on USMB is not protected free speech.

Turn in anyone if you believe that poster is a threat to someone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "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."'

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

Hate speech enjoys Constitutional protections, threats against individuals, not. Expressing that you would like to see all African-Americans murdered is protected speech, however hateful (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)); advocating that someone be harmed because of his race is not protected speech (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)).

The case cited in the OP is similar to Mitchell, where the speech is not entitled to Constitutional protections because it was directed at a particular individual, the wife.

And as already correctly noted, that the means of communication was the internet is irrelevant, or that one uses an anonymous screen name does not shield him from criminal prosecution.

 

[Agit8r]

Internet is simply another medium for expressing whatever freedoms the Constitution grants us already. The internet doesn't extend new freedoms, it simply enables a new way of expressing certain freedoms as with speech.

If it was already deemed illegal to threaten to kill someone in person, in print, over the phone, etc. then that decision would be upheld if it took place over the internet. Nothing new but the medium took place.

Right. The only matter here should be HOW the information was obtained. If it is a private communication, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it was obtained from a public forum, there is none. I've never heard of a reasonable expectation of anonymity, and I don't know how one could expect such a thing on a publicly accessible forum.

 

[A Perez]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

Can you give us a link to that legal standard?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would like to see that legal standard as well.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The legal standard for threats and harassment is does the victim feel that way. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered either. In person, on the phone, in an email, text or posting on the internet. Even the intention of the person sending the message is irrelevant.

If the victim perceives the message as a threat then the law treats it as a violation.

So yes, threats made on USMB will be violations of the law if someone reports them to the authority and says that they feel threatened.

The solution is simple, don't make threats, period.

Can you give us a link to that legal standard?

Criminal Harassment Definition

http://www.ncsl.org/research/teleco...y/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspx