Social Media Argument Analysis

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

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

These threatening posts resulted in the Elonis v. Untied States case, wherein Elonis was ultimately convicted of four of the five counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), despite Elonis’ plea for the court to dismiss the charges under the claim that his threats were not “true threats” (Facts and Case Summary - Elonis v. U.S., 2015).

Yes. The author gives many moral reasons why he believes an invasion on Iraq would be wrong.

A case of social media harassment has gone all the way to the supreme court. In 2014 a case of social media harassment Elonis v.United States appeared in front of the supreme court. Defendant Anthony Elonis had threatened not only his wife and children but also two female co-workers. The argument is whether Elonis harassing Facebook post are claimed to be part of his disturbed sense of humor or taken as true threats. If found guilty to these charges Elonis could be charged with five years in prison and $250,000 fine. Social media is a place to share thought and opinions with friends, not a place to harass and threaten innocent

Additionally, for example, if a Catholic student were not able to have meat on Friday, the school should provide many options.

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

This is interesting. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to replicate this issue on our end, but Kevin has noticed that there was an ajax error on the Drupal logs. We will continue to look at it and keep you posted. FYI, if you click on the “add new paragraph” and nothing happens, instead of saving the current page, please discard that page and create a new program page.

Over the decade our generation has become more and more into Social Media. We can post any picture, tweet about our daily lives and comment on everything. However, as you pose for a picture, or tweet about something that happened to you, do you ever think if it interferes with the First Amendment? Most people do not consider that, and sometimes what they posted can lead them into a lot of trouble because it could violate the first amendment. Many argue that first amendment grants us the freedom of speech; however, to what extent should our activity on social media be protected as free speech under the first amendment? The people’s activity on social media should be protected as free speech unless the activity is determined to be an actual threat towards someone because there are different interpretations, our comments reflect our opinions, and the right of free speech is the foundation of our country and forms what this country is about.

In this week’s article, we anayzled an Ad, created by a company called Canada Oil Sands Community. The Ad’s main focus was on two white, attractive women- their lips barely touching, and they are embracing each other. The Ad says “In Canada lesbians are considered hot! In Saudi Arabia if you’re a lesbian YOU DIE!” then goes on to say “why buy oil from companies who don’t think lesbians are hot? “Choose equality! Choose Canadian oil!” The creator of the Ad, Robbie Picard, is gay himself, as well as Metis. The post originally was just a marketing ploy, and while issuing his apology Picard said he is glad it is drawing attention, and will take the backlash if the issue is getting to the root of the problem-which to his defence is Saudi Arabia not accepting LGBT people into their society. Picard states that “It was not my intent of demeaning women or any people of any sexual orientation.”,

Nowadays, a lot of people are using social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumbler and so on. Since the Internet has propagated rapidly, social media have progressed a lot. The generalization of the internet makes us to live conveniently and fast. People are almost using smart phones, i-phones or comfortable devices which can access to internet. These equipments make us to do social network easily. It helps contact friends, family, and other people even though they live far away. It could be, however, abused, if you don’t use properly. Especially, it is important that we understand and regulate the use of social media by young children.

Walk into a library, you have a computer, you are most likely carrying a phone, at home, you most likely have a computer, laptop, tablet, or even all three. This shows that we have social media access at the tip of our fingers, making it so easy to open up the site or app and just type out a phrase or paragraph, letting hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions, of people know what you think. Back then, it was harder to let the nation know what you were thinking, and it took even take months before everyone knew, versus today, where the nation might know by the end of the day, and it’s because of this that companies regulate what their users are posting, attempting at keeping the online world free from threats, hate, harmful words, and more. Rutenberg quotes Jeffrey Goldberg as he says, “At a certain point I’d rather take myself off the platform where speech has become so become so offensive than advocate for the suppression of that speech” (2). Twitter also said that “everyone on Twitter should feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, but behavior that harasses, intimidates or uses fear to silence another person’s voice should have no place on our platform” (Rutenberg 2).

In this paper, I argue that social media may be an outlet for freedom of expression but it has been widely misused since there is little control over social media. The aim is to convince the reader that social media is a ground for insults, threats and bullying, given the freedom of expression and lack of governance that

Our society has become heavily reliant on social media, and today’s younger generation cannot avoid using it in their everyday lives. As time has progressed, social media has advanced significantly, becoming easier to access with a touch of a button. These advancements provide both positive and negative consequences to youths’ relationships. Due to the rapid advancement of social media, youths’ real-life relationships with their peers have been affected both positively and negatively.

Social media has taken off like a rocket throughout the years. The annoying sound of a modem connecting has turned into a soundless transaction. The wait time to connect is instant, opening a global world of interactions for people. You can now connect with anyone, anywhere at anytime at least once a day. Social media defined by Goyal is “Any platform,which provides the facility of sharing ideas, exchanging information and sending messages over an electronic medium, is considered as social media.” (Goyal,222). This is to include online magazines, Facebook, Twitter, Newspapers,Email, Blogs, YouTube and many more. Advertisers have taken notice to these platforms, utilizing social media to promote their brands, develop trust with the consumer,save money and target audiences faster than ever before.