Anthony D. Elonis Case Study

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

In today’s world, social media have a part in many people lives. Social media allow people to express themselves however and whenever they want. This is exactly what Anthony Elonis did. After a divorce Elonis claimed he adopted the rap persona Tone Dougie and posted long rants in the form of rap lyrics on Facebook. These rants expressed violence and killings. Elonis also stated “Art is about pushing limits, I’m willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights.” He also posts disclaimers or indications that his rants were aspired to be art or therapy .Although The First Amendment guarantees our right of free speech, a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone should be considered a threat whether its face to face or through social media. Freedom of speech end and become a specific threat to another person when you direct a violent act toward anyone. As a consequence of his Facebook post, Anthony D. Elonis was indicted with five counts of making threats.

Having demonstrated how the use of technology can influence young generations, Stryker goes on to say that punishing those who make bad and or racist remarks only breeks further hatred. Stryker uses a hypothetical example to support his claim and explain why. He continues to go further and give real world examples of how a New York City EMT was fired because of his racist tweets on his online profile (Stryker 588). This strengthened Stryker’s position on how publicly shaming an individual only causes more harm and problems.

In the United States of America, the First Amendment of the Constitution assures individuals such civil liberties as the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Freedom of speech preserves not only an individual’s right to vocally express themselves unabridged, it also allows them the right to burn the American flag, engage in silent protest, and more recently (2016), get a tattoo. In some respects, freedom of speech has come to mean the freedom of communication.

For example, in the case of Elonis v. United States, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address this increasingly relevant issue in deciding whether an individual’s Facebook posts qualified as true threats. Elonis was charged in accordance to Section 875(c) of U.S. Law. Section 875(c) governs the class of statements that do not enjoy First Amendment protections because they constitute true threats. As aforementioned previously, while the Supreme Court has upheld the protections of free speech, this trial marks an instance where true threats were declared as a category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment. When analyzing statutory provisions that reference true threats, however, the Court has applied varying intent standards to the crimes, without referencing the First Amendment implications of these statements. (Best 1132) Even so, the significance of Elonis v. United States is unequivocal-the Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect legitimate or “true” threats, and that any speech that targets or endangers the wellbeing of another is not free speech and can be

Free speech is important. It enables humans to openly express any thoughts, opinions, or ideas one may have without the risk of government oppression or censorship. Social media act as platforms that promote free speech, as social media allow any person’s thoughts, opinions, or ideas to be shared with the world at the simple click of an “enter” key. However, there do exist limitations to free speech when threats or hate speech become involved. In these instances, ramifications and legal actions can be taken as a means of combating verbal threats and hateful statements. With this in mind, the Elonis v. United States sase is of particular notoriety due to its exemplification of both the role in which social media play in free speech, as well

This is the primary flaw in Elonis’ argument of standing behind the First Amendment and shouting freedom of speech. Anthony Elonis shared his words via social media to threaten and intimidate others.

Anthony Elonis should not be protected under the first amendment. He has the right to express himself, but he did not have the right to express himself as he did online. Writer Amy Howe stated regarding Anthony’s rights under the first amendment that Elonis’ “right[s] [are] not unlimited; the classical example is that you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre when there is actually no fire, because the resulting chaos could lead to injuries or even death” (Howe 1). Meaning that one can express themselves,however, it should not be an expression that could potentially cause harm or even death. One may say that in this situation that example does not apply to Elonis as he was not in any theater or crowded area. In contrast, Elonis was in a

The case has said that the petitioner Elonis had posted violent rap lyrics threatening his ex-wife, his co-workers as well as the police and a kindergarten class and soon he was charged with 4 accounts of threats under Section 875 and was sent to prison for a maximum of 44 months. His lyrics were initially merely brushed off as ‘fictitious’ by disclaimers but many others who read his posts, including his wife and co-workers found them to be threatening. His ex-wife in particular expressed how frightened she was for her life and her children’s’ life too. As well as his employer the point where the latter actually told the FBI about him and that got him convicted and sent to court. However he was bold enough to make the government question if his threats were ‘true threats’.

expressed or inappropriate without the regard to the speaker’s intended meanings is not protected in the First Amendment. Threats must be true in order to be legally actionable. A reasonable person must foresee that the statement would be interpreted by the recipient as a serious expression of intent to carry out the threat to cause harm. For example, the U.S. v. Voneida case. A university student was convicted of posting threats to others on a social media page two days after the shootings at Virginia Tech. The student had posted several statements and pictures to his Myspace page, including a number of violent statements, such as, “Someday I’ll make the Virginia Tech incident look like a trip to an amusement park,” and captioning a posting,

The assessment for whether or not speech falls under the actual threats exemption to the First Amendment is whether or not a reasonable person would distinguish it to be a rather serious expression of an aim to cause bodily harm. I can argue the Supreme Court case on the grounds that it concerned a cross-burning, which is behavior that can be understood as a threat or not. The statements made by Elonis in this matter, on the other hand, were true communications with threatening texts to specific parties. Therefore, the plaintiff can maintain his or her "reasonable person" argument for testing an actual threat exemption to the First Amendment (Ferrilli et al.,

On Wednesday, October 22, 1911, at 11:35 a.m., I, Officer Anthony Clark, was dispatched to the nearby drilling site located from the Sunday Farm to investigate an assault. The assualt was reported by William Longfellow (DOB 10/13/1877), a work at the drilling site.

Every day, millions of people use social media to either converse with their peers or to post pictures. There has been much discussion on whether or not individuals should be prosecuted for rude statements made on social media. Individuals should not be prosecuted for derogative statements made on social media. Although some may say that prosecuting cyberbullies for statements made on social media is beneficial, it would have many negative consequences. Prosecuting individuals for statements made on the internet would discourage personal responsibility, be a violation of the first amendment, and squander tax payers' money.

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.

Today’s major media platforms are defining and developing what constitutes the Internet’s version of free speech. As a new form of expression emerges through the use of social media platforms, policymakers must regulate the censorship of posted content while still protecting the integrity of the user’s First Amendment rights. Authors Marvin Ammori, Marjorie Heins, and Jonathan Zittrain engage in synergistic conversation of censorship by mega media platforms’ evolving terms and conditions and their effects on Internet users through the use of real-world examples, differing tones of voice, and individual angles of vision. Ammori’s article “The ‘New’ New York Times: Free Speech Lawyering in the Age of Google and Twitter” serves as the anchor