Skip to main content

Post #1

     In the United States, we have a very hard time determining what is and isn't acceptable to say on the internet. As everyone knows, everything that we post is saved forever whether you delete it or not, but should what you say on the internet or social media be used against you if it is serious enough? In an article published by the American Bar Association, explains a story of how Anthony Elonis, a man who was left by his wife and took the their children with her, posted a very disturbing message on his Facebook page, "There's one way to love ya but a thousand ways to kill ya. I'm not gonna rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts," (American Bar Association). This is the initial post and with the help of a couple other threats from her husband, got her a protection order and custody of their children. After various other posts including one that calls for a shooting at a local elementary school and threats to other people, he was convicted of a federal crime and sentenced to three years in prison. He is now challenging his conviction saying that since he said he no intention of going through with these threats that it should be considered black humor and satire.
   
     This ties back to the course concept of how do we define Freedom of Speech? What all is it limited to? and how do we tie it in to social media? There is no doubt that Elonis was in the wrong for his use of Facebook and making very serious threats, but should that still be able to imprison someone knowing all that comes with being a convict and all the freedoms and liberties that are taken away, does he deserve that over some threats that had disclaimers and he specifically said he had no intention of following through with these threats so why isn't banning him from the social media site enough? I believe that in this case there isn't a solution that'll cause people the question it in some way, shape, or form. In social media, there is no clear way to apply freedom of speech, because in the United States our form of freedom of speech is up for interpretation theres no reference for further developments that were developed after it was created.


(American Bar Association. Free speech and social media: Where to draw the line March 2015)
Retrieved from: https://www.americanbar.org/publications/youraba/2015/march-2015/aba-panelists-debate-free-speech-limits-on-social-media.html

Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 20, 2017 at 7:18 PM

    I think this is a very interesting case regarding what actually falls under our country's Freedom of Speech laws, but I do disagree with you when you say that posting on social media is questionable to the U.S. First Amendment and that banning Elonis is enough of a consequence for his threats. My personal opinion on this case is that Anthony Elonis should have to serve the three year prison sentence without the right to argue his "intention;" banning him from social media is not enough. He could easily carry out the threats off of social media, or continue to severely threaten her through a different means of communication.

    Speaking to someone over a social media, or online platform is no different from speaking to someone in person; you are still speaking to them. Just because you have to read something rather than physically voicing what you want to say does not change the intention of the speech. I honestly do not understand why this case would even be able to be questioned whether or not it would constitute under Freedom of Speech, or the First Amendment.

    Although, as you mention, our defining factors for what is and is not considered Freedom of Speech are sometimes questionable, once there is a threat of violence there is no longer protection under the First Amendment and the government can step in. From what I understand through the quote you used above, it was nowhere specified that Elonis' intent was solely satire. He used words with a clear threat to murder, and because he posted that directly on her wall his intention was clearly violent. Therefore, your question on "what all [it is] limited to" has an answer for the example you have used; one limit to be protected under the Freedom of Speech is when there is a threat of violence.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more