The Pros And Cons Of Free Speech

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.

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

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

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.

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

In the case of Elonis v. United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Elonis’s speech did not count as a “true threat” since a subjective intent to threaten was needed. An objective standard would not be sufficient in this case because we want to separate actual criminal acts from heat of the moment mistakes. However, the decision of the Supreme Court does not include intended victims of the threats and they need to be taken into account as well. The government’s duty to protect the right to first amendment’s freedom of speech and its duty to keep people safe can collide from time to time. Therefore, we may have to take all threats seriously and not just the ones the speaker intends, in order to protect everyone from potential violence and prevent preemptive strikes out of fear.

For centuries Universities have been a place to freely voice your opinion and debate with others. These institutions have been relatively safe harbors for debating social issues and exercising the individual's civil rights. However, current students seem to be the exact opposite, and the constitutional principle of free speech seems under siege. “Colleges and universities in the United States have retreated from strong historical support for free speech, including the dis-invitation of speakers, promulgation of speech codes that prohibit what is deemed "offensive speech," and students protesting the participation of politically unpopular speakers on campus” (Eliott)

Just to begin with my opinion, the Facebook postings, which threatened the defendant's spouse and others, were actual threats, not safeguarded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Therefore, conviction does not need proof that the defendant subjectively wanted the statement to be threats. Also, a brief summary of the case, Anthony Elonis' wife left him and Elonis afterwards lost his job for posting improper messages concerning his colleague on Facebook (Ferrilli et al., 2014). Afterwards, he also started posting overly violent messages about his wife, local elementary schools and also the police force, which led him to eventually being arrested and charged with conveying in interstate commerce communications with a threat to hurt the person of another (Hananel, 2014).

Although threats on social media are misinterpreted, the author claims we still have the right to the First Amendment. Occasionally, threats are not meant in a serious manner, but people view threats of violence in a different perspective and not everybody follows through the same opinion.

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.

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.

Freedom of speech had a link of positive impacts to the world. One positive impact would be the citizens questioning the government about their personal interests and opinion on free speech. This means that before freedom of speech was questioned, many citizens did not have a voice. The government was not concerned with increasing individual’s voices based on personal opinions and beliefs. When citizens began to question the government, the government had not one motive behind not giving individuals the opportunity to speak freely. This arouse more questioning and thoughts amongst citizens and government officials. The United States implemented the first amendment which is applied to all state and local governments. No one is restricted or

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

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.