Supreme Court weighs free speech, threats online

Facebook and Twitter news feeds are often clogged with opinions written in a bout of rage from old high school acquaintances or distant family members. However, those posts of outrage may not fall under free speech laws depending on the language used in messages.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether rants posted on social media such as Facebook can be considered threats or if they are protected by free speech.

The case stems from a Pennsylvania man, currently serving a 44-month sentence in prison, who posted statements on his Facebook page directed at his estranged wife, FBI agents and a kindergarten class.

The comments made by Anthony Elonis were violent and included death threats directed at his wife. Even after a court issued an order to keep Elonis away from his wife, he threatened her again and went on to threaten a kindergarten class, which earned him a visit from the FBI. Following the visit from a female FBI agent, Elonis went on to threaten her as well.

Elonis claims his postings, which were written in the form of rap lyrics, were a way to vent his frustration, first at his wife and later at the FBI agent who questioned him.

The first amendment issue has to do with the fact hes tying to tie it to creative speech rap lyrics and saying that makes it protected under the first amendment, said Dirk Deam, senior lecturer in political science.

Deam said the fact it is online really does not matter in this case. It is more about the way he presented the speech.

In most respects, its not the medium [of spoken word or online] that controls, its the character of the speech, Deam said about whether the form of speech is relevant to the case or not.

For ISU students who use multiple forms of social media, Captain Carrie Jacobs, patrol commander for the ISU Police Department, has some advice.

Jacobs said the ISU PD receives reports a couple times a week about threats and harassment online. She said they frequently receive these types of reports from a third party.

See the article here:
Supreme Court weighs free speech, threats online