Elonis Case Study

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

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’.

Elonis also posted “lyrics” about using explosives to kill police,

2.what was the feared outcome from this type of court ruling ? in other words,what type of message is the judge sending to society (cew)

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

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

The constitutional issue later appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where they discussed the case’s “two separate issues, a voluntariness issue regarding a confession and a harmless error issue,” as stated by Mr. Jarrett during the trial at the United States Supreme Court (“Arizona v. Fulminante. Oyez.org”).” In Arizona v. Fulminante, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to uphold the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision: Fulminante would receive a new trial and the confession would not be allowed; this would be for future law reference. The Supreme Court, profoundly, ruled that a coerced confession could not account as evidence against the person being tried (“Arizona v. Fulminante”. Lawschool).

United States, Elonis was convicted under a federal law that makes it a crime to communicate “any threat to injure the person of another.” He was sentence was 44 months. The majority tossed the conviction, rejecting the government’s statutory argument that the mens rea for the crime was strict liability or negligence. The Court held that the prosecution needed to show that Elonis intended the posts to be threats, and therefore that there was a subjective intent to threaten. An objective reasonable person standard does not go far enough to separate innocent, accidental conduct from purposeful, wrongful acts. The Court held that, in this case, an objective standard would risk punishing an innocent actor because the crucial element that makes this behavior criminal is the threat, not merely the posting. On Jun 1 2015 the judgment was reversed and the case was

In 2010, the life of Anthony D. Elonis began to crumble away. His wife had left him and he was fired from Dorney Park & Wild-water Kingdom in Allentown. With all of these events hanging over his head like a storm cloud, he decided to release his frustrations.

The appeals court ruled that there was no evidence to show that the defendant’s conduct was willful or wanton or in reckless disregard to safety.

The appeals court ruled that there was no evidence to show that the defendant’s conduct was willful or wanton or in reckless disregard to safety.

The history of the insanity plea is highly extensive. The highly controversial plea has given serial killers, rapists, and criminals the opportunity to get a reduced sentence if they prove that they are not mentally stable. The insanity plea has been around longer than some people may think, dating all the way back to the Roman Empire. Some of the current tests that determine if someone is legally insane are the M’Naghten Rule and the Model Penal Code. People who would take these tests are well known killers, such as Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy.

There are a plethora of relevant ethical theories that can be applied to the Elonis case. Specifically, these include Mill’s ethical theories of liberty, the public and private spheres, and free speech. In an overarching conception of free speech, Mill perceives individual liberty as intertwined with free speech; as something that ought only be restricted if an individual’s action or speech is liable to harm others “or violates the good manners required in a public place” (Horner, 2015, p. 67). This theory can be applied to the Elonis case, wherein Elonis’ speech was both liable to harm others and violated the good manners of Facebook, arguably a public place as a social media platform. This connects to Mill’s conceptions and theories of the public and private spheres, as well, wherein the public sphere is a place restrictions on individual liberty have a right to be put in place. On the other hand, the private sphere allows no room for interference from the state or governments on individual liberty (Horner, 2015). These theories pertain to the Elonis case in

The analysis reveals that the legal decision on rape cases are greatly affected by the languages used to depict and represent the appellant by the defense council. Depending on the lexical descriptions of the characteristics and behaviors of the offenders and victims, the judging cases are broadly categorized into two spheres: ‘hard criminals’ and “psychologically disturbed”. In the cases that are classified as “hard criminals” as the description of the offenders were the ones with sexually violent and out of control tendencies, and strangers to the victims such as “violent sexual crime”, and “danger to female members of the public”, thus, pose a great threat to the public.

in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law