Elonis v. United States
In the Supreme Court case, Elonis v. United States, Anthony Elonis, the petitioner, claimed that his First Amendment rights were being denied. Elonis used Facebook as a platform for venting comments about people who he felt had done him wrong. Elonis’ words, however, were interpreted to be threats. As an American citizen, Anthony Elonis is protected by the First Amendment as he claims. Having freedom of speech, however, does not mean that a person can say anything they want, whenever they want. Examining the First Amendment, quoting from the Brief for the United States and the Brief for the Petitioner will prove that Elonis did violate federal law.
When the Constitution of the United States was
…show more content…
According to the Brief for the Petitioner, the First Amendment of the United States Congress cannot establish a law to stop individuals from practicing religious beliefs. The amendment goes on to state that individuals have the right to gather in peaceful assembly and petition the government (2). Under the First Amendment, Americans earned freedom to speak up and be heard by the government. It does not give Americans the right to say anything they wish. In the Brief for the Petitioner it states that according to Section 875© of Title 18 of the United States Code provides:
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (2)
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 was charged five times but convicted on only four counts. The first count, of which he was not convicted, was not seen as a “true threat.” The jury believed that the first conviction was seen more as a joke. The other four convictions, however, were deemed as direct threats. The jury believed that the defendants felt threatened by Elonis’ statements whether or not he truly meant his
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
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
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peacefully, and to petition the Government for e redress of grievances.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
The First Amendments is a blessing that the United States is fortunate enough to have. First and foremost, First Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and expression, without any government interference ("First Amendment" n.p.). The freedom of expression includes the right to free speech, press, assembly, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances ("First Amendment" n.p.). Redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through courts or other governmental action ("First Amendment" n.p.). People are allowed to practice their own religions and do not have to conform to one religion, all because of the First Amendment. People's rights are protected with no government interference.
Our first amendment to the United States Constitution reads; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
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
All United States citizens have rights. We have the five functions of the government: to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare. As independent individuals in America, we are supposed to abide by these laws. We endure these laws. However, we are also taught to stand up for what we believe in. The 1st amendment confirms that there will be no tolerance for discrimination towards others’ religious beliefs. It states:
Justice Abe Fortas’ first argument was in paragraph 4 when he said “in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to Freedom of expression.” He backs this up by citing the case of Terminiello v. Chicago where it was determined that the Constitution
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
Every single person in the United States have the right to express their religion of preference or no religion at all, however him or her wants without offending anybody, and the best way to protect religion’s liberty was by keeping the government out if it and creating this First Amendment freedom of religion, to separate the church from the state.
Freedom of expression has always been a heated and heavily debated topic throughout our society, more so in recent times due to the increasing amount of freedoms that we gain. However, it is only natural that free speech be something of extreme amounts of conflict since this right is expressed in the very first amendment of the Constitution. But, how loosely should such an important document within our history be interpreted? This has been a question for years, and it is obvious that this particular amendment presents itself through our day-to-day activities. The real issue with freedom of speech is that, even though it is presented to us, there are obviously people who would abuse it to invoke emotional distress, or even to invoke acts of
1William Jefferson Mr. ArmstrongEnglish Comp 223 September 2017Speak No EvilFreedom to the people has been Americas greatest accomplishment, the border placed between the lines of freedom are not clarified. Freedom of speech is the right for the American people to express their opinion without any intervention from the government. Freedom of speech is not a privilege, it is our general right for all people regardless of their religion, nationality, or race. The restrictions for free speech is a current event that keeps the American people questioning why is it even necessary.In addition, this argument is seen from two different viewpoints. First, who agree with the fact that our freedom of speech should have restrictions to keep others from expressing their opinion to avoid an argument and criticism. On social media, people around the world have used social media to spread hateful slurs or clichés to express their opinion. Whether its racist,
In my opinion Elonis assaulted everyone involved from his former wife, FBI agent, community, former father in law and school children. It’s one thing to vent and express how you feel but Elonis to it to an extremely different level. For instance when Elonis posted 'If I only knew then what I know now, I would have smothered your ass with a pillow, dumped you in the back seat, left your body in Toad Creek and made it look like rape and murder.” Who in their right minds post things as such on Facebook? At this point Elonis should have been detained because he’s assaulting his ex wife by describing how he could of killed her and gotten away with it. Officials should have found something wrong with this post including his attorneys because he
Let us look at Elonis ' defense statement. He said he was just using rap-like lyrics to comfort his depression emotions on Facebook. He felt like what he said were free speech and should be protected by the First Amendment (Barnes, 2014). The difficultly of this case is the Supreme Court claimed that actual threats do not fall under the protection of