A Brief Note On Crime And Social Media Essay

While, reading the case, Elonis v. United States, I was astonished to see that someone would post something so explicit, offensive, and inhumane. Basically, the case of Elonis v. United States is about a man named Anthony Elonis who is an upcoming rapper and used his stage name, Tone Dougie. His Facebook page consisted of him posting disturbing rap lyrics. Even though Elonis was going through a divorce with his former wife, which did not stop him from writing and posting crude lyrics. Eventually, it got to the point where his wife felt that she was being targeted by his lyrics. According to an article on, New York Times, Elonis wrote that he wanted to see a Halloween costume that included his wife’s “head” on a stick. Obviously, she felt threatened and reported the assaults to the police. Anthony Elonis was convicted for posting threats that targeted his wife, his coworkers, police officers, a kindergarten class, and even an FBI agent. Although Elonis argued that his posting are not considered to be a “true threat” and that he is protected under the First Amendment. I believe he wanted to cause fear towards his wife, Tara and therefore, is his lyrics are a true threat. Basically, a true threat is defined as something a person would consider to be “purposely” harmful and cause pain. Elonis mentioned that his post were not offended nor were the threatening anybody. He stated that he did not have the intent of trying to harm anyone, he was just trying

Media can impact individuals understanding about the operations of the criminal justice system in different ways. Three ways media impacts individuals are based off the fear of crime, attitudes, and police effectiveness.

|Bob Barr. "The Cybercrime Treaty Threatens Civil Liberties." Opposing Viewpoints: Cyber Crime. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, |

The case of Elonis vs. United States is about a man claiming to exercise his freedom of speech by threatening his wife, coworkers, and elementary schools in the form of rap lyrics posted on social media. Most saw

The case, Elonis vs. United States, conveys that threats on social media are a crime. In this court case, the convict quoted a rapper’s song on social media towards his wife and the FBI. Whether or not the convict intentionally meant what he threatened, the representatives

According to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the people of the nation are entitled to the freedom of speech, but not all speech is the same. The internet provides us with an infinite amount of information, grants us access to virtually everything we could want and acts as an unrestrained vehicle of communication. In the day and age where technology is advancing and social media and internet are of rising importance, the Supreme Court of the United States has been faced with the challenge of deciding what constitutes a true threat made on social media websites.

In today’s society, we as a nation showcase our lives through social media. The case, Elonis vs. The United States, the petitioner, Anthony Douglas Elonis, is no different. He was an inspiring rap artist and was using Facebook as a platform to share his lyrics. After his divorce, things got out of hand. He started to post threatful lyrics about his wife, co-workers, and a kindergarten school. One of his friends saw these post and decided to report it. The FBI ended up getting involved and before long Elonis found out and started to post about the FBI agent. The FBI then had enough of it, so they arrested him. At the lower court the jury of his peers felt that the post constituted a reasonable threat and sentenced him to 44 months in prison. He, of course, appealed it, sending it to the Supreme Court, saying that his intent was not threatful. The Supreme

Elonis’ threat was difficult to distinguish because it had been posted online. There was a simple question that needed to be answered: How does the First Amendment apply to social media? First Amendment does not protect all speech; some exceptions include those for libel, incitement, obscenity, and fighting words, and one for “true threats,” which in this case is the issue for Elonis’ case. Elonis’ lawyers asserted that the First Amendment should permit the undesirable effects to their approach would cause, rather than imprisoning a person for misjudging how others would take his

Every year, billions of people use the internet. There has been much discussion on whether or not to prosecute individuals for what they say online. People should not be prosecuted for what they say online. Although many people say that people should be prosecuted, they shouldn’t. People should not be prosecuted because they need to be able to avoid it, the first amendment doesn’t justify criminal action, and hurt feelings doesn’t involve the justice system.

Just in the last decade, there has been a 29% increase in crimes committed against residents and a 22% increase for business losses due to online crimes (Meyer). Another large issue with technology is that they monitor an individualś every move, for example, a phone company, AT&T, was monitoring their customers phones to be able to “use your individual Web browsing information, like the search terms you enter and the Web pages you visit, to tailor ads and offers to your interests” (Silverman 282). Although the increase in such crimes can potentially cause many issues and obstacles for an individual, they do not physically harm anyone. Such crimes as internet fraud and any other crime that can be committed online, are all fixable and can be prevented. There are security systems that can help protect against frauds and prevent any more from occurring, which makes this issue much less crucial to stop. It is also possible to contact police and bankers to stop this from occurring and they can help you regain all of your losses. The government also has the NSA, the National Security Agency, to monitor all internet movements, which helps stop many of these issues. New technology has helped prevent an immense amount of street crimes, that without the internet, would have only continued to rise, while millions of people would have continued to be murdered.

in the law enforcement community to become “jumpy” and uneasy around individuals that refuse to follow simple orders. There are many times when “bad cops” are uncovered through an investigation that damages the respected name of the police. However the media’s coverage of these types on incidents does not help in the matter. (Barnett 2016)

With this unimaginable treasure of information and enlightening wealth comes with it a certain degree of deregulation and disorder, where, often enough, there are no solidified, concrete laws to curb illegal or immoral activity. In a sense, the Internet is a world all of its own: a whole new realm of human interaction, where anonymity is a gift and its use, a weapon to use against everyone else. Much unlike the reality of the world, the Internet is a place where anybody can simply slip on a digital mask and whisk their way into the black mire, slipping past justice and morality and into the trenches of criminality and malevolence. Under the protection of a digital screen, countless numbers of wrongdoings are committed everyday, where no one hears the rings of justice or the cries for help. This number has exploded in the few recent years, where social media has grasped hold of ourselves and trapped us within the bright, inviting screens of tweets, posts, and updates. This introduction of an unprecedented amount of social media users have lured in the people whose purposes are exploitative and harrowing. Sadly, much of the outside world is powerless to help those victimized by these people, as the Internet is modern man’s new Wild, Wild West, where debauchery runs amuck and the helpless struggle to protect themselves from those who wish to see them harmed. It

Though the First Amendment protects the freedom of expression [1], not all speech is protected by law.  What if material on the Internet advocates illegal conduct or issues threats of violence?  What if information such as bomb-making instructions helps someone carry out a threat of violence?  As stated in the preceding scenario-report, the controversial website Anarchist Fever inspired amateur anarchist Paul Berkowicz, to build a bomb (with instructions found on the internet) and blow up a federal courthouse.  Obviously, he will be punished for his actions, but the issue now is what will become of the websites that helped him etch his name in infamy?  What can be done about digital conspirators who hide behind free expression?  Often, there can be no direct link established between such websites and physical crimes they inspire.  When deciding about these gray areas of free speech on the internet, we must consider issues such as regulation of the Internet, the extent of free speech, and established legal precedent.  These are the real factors that determine whether or not content of the Internet is objectionable enough to be censored or even criminally punished.

The agencies employed by governments to police the web in order to protect the vulnerable have seen an increase in child pornography and online fraud. The speed at which information can be distributed and the number of people that can be reached attracts those that are intent on causing harm. The term “cybercrime” is becoming more widely used. The financial gains that can be made and the anonymity the internet can provide, make the virtual world of cyberspace a haven for criminals. Although the internet has huge benefits for information gathering and social networking, in the wrong hands it can cause harm to the vulnerable and criminals are able to vanish into the underground with the use of false identities that are hard to track online.

In our society, social networking has become very popular over the last 5 years. Twitter is a social networking site that allows users to become “followers” of other people and stay informed about current events and social trends. Many argue whether or not these social websites such as Twitter, are good for society. In two articles about Twitter, the authors present different arguments about why Twitter is good or bad for society. The author of “Heading off disaster, one Tweet at a time” by Jim Spellman, states that Twitter is a good way of communicating current events happening around the world. The other article, “Is Twitter Bad for National Security?” by Tony Bradley, argues that Twitter could have dangerous effects on our nation’s