Opinion of the Court
The first constitutional right states that congress shall not make a law prohibiting freedom of speech, or of the press. In this case the respondent claims that Anthony Elonis’ lyrical posts are a threat to others, and violate the federal anti-threat statute. In these lyrics, he explains things such as killing his ex-wife, and shooting up a kindergarten. They argue that any reasonable person would take this as a threat, some of the reasonable people listed being those who were threatened, and even the lawyers themselves. Elonis defended himself stating that the lyrics were taken out of context by the respondent, and that he had the first constitutional right to post these lyrics. As the petitioners state, he even included disclaimers on multiple of those posts that clearly claimed, “This is not a threat,” and they argue that there is no proof he was planning on committing these acts. Due to the information given on the case, I have come to the conclusion that our first constitutional right protects those who make statements that are clearly not a threat, as in this case Elonis clearly stated, “This is not a threat,”. Those who make statements that are deemed from others threatening, but have no proof they intend to carry out these acts shall also be protected by this right. Firstly, Elonis stated below multiple of the lyrical posts, “This is not a threat.” This gives us clear context as to the fact that his post is an artistic decision. If we were to punish someone for saying something that they clearly said wasn’t a threat, we would be setting a precedent that would punish people for saying things taken out of context. Context and intent are the most important parts in determining if someone is guilty or innocent, so this precedent would ensure that there be proof of intent in a statement deemed to be a threat by others. This precedent of course would not cover things like yelling fire in a public space. However, if something said by a person causes chaos or results in harm to others, that person should be prosecuted whether the statement was said sarcastically, jokingly, or out of context. Secondly, the “reasonable people” in this case had clear bias. The petitioner brought up multiple times in their points that because reasonable people deemed the statements to be a threat, the respondent should face charges. The federal anti-threat law should definitely not count something as a threat if a reasonable person interprets it as so. It is incredibly difficult in determining who is a reasonable person and who isn’t, as it is all up to a person’s opinion. If we were to use intent instead as the decider, it would call for more evidence to be used in the case, such as that of Elonis saying, “This is not a threat,” clearly stating his intentions. The reasonable people brought up in this case that deemed Elonis’ statements as threats were the petitioners and those who were threatened. These people have clear bias, because for one those threatened would feel strongly emotional about the said threats, and two the petitioner side is literally hired to prosecute Elonis, and therefore has the greatest possible bias. Then again, this is only the way the petitioner described “reasonable people”. If we were to instead use a theoretical reasonable person, it would still be difficult in determining what a theoretical reasonable person would feel about this case. Freedom of speech has been one of our greatest, most important rights from the creation of our constitution. There is a reason it comes first on our bill of rights. In the case of Elonis vs. the U.S., Elonis made clear as to what the context of his online posts were, adding disclaimers to some posts that said, “This is not a threat.” Not only should the first amendment protect people in a situation like this, but also their intent should protect them. Intent should be seen as the main decider in whether or not someone makes a threatening claim. If there is proof that there was no intent in a claim, or there is no proof that there was intent in a claim, our constitution should protect those who make said claims. The “reasonable people” claim is not enough in determining whether he is guilty or not, as determining who is a reasonable person gets too difficult. Therefore, the constitution protects Anthony Elonis from all charges. It is so ordered.
0 Comments
Opinion of the Court
The first constitutional right states that congress shall not make a law prohibiting freedom of speech, or of the press. In this case the respondent claims that Elonis’ lyrical posts are a threat to others, and violate the law. In these lyrics he explains things such as killing his ex-wife, and shooting up a kindergarten. They argue that any reasonable person would take this as a threat, some of the reasonable people listed being those who were threatened, and even the lawyers themselves. Elonis defended himself stating that the lyrics were taken out of context by the respondent, and that he had the first constitutional right to post these lyrics. As the petitioners state, he even included disclaimers on multiple of those posts that clearly claimed, “This is not a threat,” and they argue that there is no proof he was planning on committing these acts. Due to the information given on the case, I have come to the conclusion that our first constitutional right protects those who make statements that are clearly not a threat, as in this case Elonis clearly stated, “This is not a threat,”. Those who make statements that are deemed from others threatening, but have no proof they intend to carry out these acts shall also be protected by this right. Firstly, Elonis stated below multiple of the lyrical posts, “This is not a threat.” This gives us clear context as to the fact that his post is an artistic decision. If we were to punish someone for saying something that they clearly said wasn’t a threat, we would be setting a precedent that would punish people for saying things taken out of context. Context and intent is the most important part in determining if someone is guilty or innocent, so this precedent would ensure that there be proof of intent in a statement deemed to be a threat by others. This precedent of course would not cover things like yelling fire in a public space though. If something said by a person causes chaos or results in harm to others, that person should be prosecuted whether the statement was said sarcastically, jokingly, or out of context. Secondly, the “reasonable people” in this case had clear bias. The petitioner brought up multiple times in their points that because reasonable people deemed the statements to be a threat, the respondent should face charges. The federal anti-threat law should definitely not count something as a threat if a reasonable person interprets it as so. There is a huge difficulty in determining who is a reasonable person and who isn’t, as it is all up to opinion. The reasonable people brought up in this case that deemed Elonis’ statements as threats were the petitioners and those who were threatened. These people have clear bias, because for one those threatened would feel strongly emotional about the said threats, and two the petitioner side is literally hired to prosecute Elonis, and therefore has the greatest possible bias. Freedom of speech has been one of our greatest, most important rights from the creation of our constitution. There is a reason it comes first on our bill of rights. In the case of Elonis vs. the U.S., Elonis made clear as to what the context of his online posts were, adding disclaimers to some posts that said, “This is not a threat”. Not only should the first amendment protect people in a situation like this, but also their intent should protect them. Intent should be seen as the main decider in whether or not someone makes a threatening claim. If there is proof that there was no intent in a claim, or there is no proof that there was intent in a claim, our constitution should protect those who make said claims. The “reasonable people” claim is not enough in determining whether he is guilty or not, as determining who is a reasonable person gets too difficult. Therefore, the constitution protects Elonis from all charges. It is so ordered Superman, one of the most recognizable heroes, if not the most recognizable hero of all time, is known by almost all who have in some way involved themselves in movie or comic knowledge. Since his creation he has been featured in multiple movies and comics that involve him in the "Universes" that were created by DC, putting him side by side with other popular superheroes in situations that typically involve fighting evil. These movies that revolve around the DC universe Superman and other heroes take place in are some of the most popular movies recently, such as "Justice League", or "Batman vs. Superman". These movies have seen less fan approval than usual though, both getting scores of under 50% on movie websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. So does Superman deserve the popularity and position he is in? Superman's character has too much power and too little flaws ruining the purpose of any superhero or villain he stars with in a movie, making him incompatible with any other characters in the DC universe.
Superman's character is much too powerful. According to IPFS.io, he has powers from "Superhuman strength", to "Flight" to even, "Invulnerability". Now does that sound like a character we'd be on the edge of our seat, wondering, "Will this be Superman's end?". Of course not. Take sports for example. One of the best parts about them is you never know who's going to win. If you were to watch every boxing fight knowing who's going to win, what would be the point of watching it? It ruins the fun. Now understandably, some people like watching powers like Superman battle it out because they find it entertaining. Now this would be fine, if it he had a great villain or weakness to even things out and make the battles more entertaining. But with all of this power, the rare times when he loses a battle is because of one, dull weakness. Every superhero needs a good weakness. When you look at Batman, his weakness is The Joker, a villain who's character finds enjoyment in making Batman's life difficult, and shows the worst in Batman. These characters relations make for the perfect Hero vs. Villain situation, and both characters in a way feed off each other. Joker's decisions will change the way Batman is as a person and change the way he looks at himself. You need that conflict in a Superhero movie. But Superman's greatest weakness? Kryptonite. Yes, a crystal. That is Superman's greatest enemy. He is a near invincible character, but if he makes contact with that crystal, he's basically dead. This makes for absolute minimal conflict. Whereas a character like Batman that has a weakness like The Joker has to make big decisions that reflect on their personality, and who they stand for, Superman just has to stay away from a crystal. And you might be thinking, what about the conflict he has that aren't related to kryptonite in the movies? Even in conflict as that of him and Batman in Batman V Superman, the conflict is dealt with because their mothers both had the same name. There isn't anything interesting about that, and the entire movie is supposed to be about that conflict. Even after that conflict is resolved, their new conflict is a giant creature that wants to kill them. Why? Because he just does, without having any motivation. Characters like Batman, Spiderman, and Iron Man all earned their spots as heroes through their conflicts growing up. Superman was just born with these powers, making him unrelatable to those who watch media involving him. Especially those he stands besides in the movies, which he creates a whole other issue for. Superman makes other heroes pointless. The point of a big superhero movie such as "The Avengers" or "Justice League" is to show different heroes put together in the same environment in which they need to combine their powers to defeat one big evil. Movies like "The Avengers" execute this well, and make sure to involve the different heroes in their films and bring purpose to each character so all are seen as important. Without this, the use of other heroes is useless. In the movie, "Justice League", the heroes revive Superman after an evil force tries to end them. Then, Superman does the rest of the work in the movie to save the day. The thing is, really any character could've revived Superman in that situation. If they wanted to, they could've made that film a standalone Superman movie, and just had some random civilian come across Superman and revive him. The point of DC bringing all of these characters together in this movie is just to plaster them on their poster so they can make more money. The poster itself says "You can't save the world alone," which I find ironic. Although Superman reigns as one of the biggest characters in superhero history, with the decline of quality in movies, his popularity might begin to die as we see a decrease in consumer interest to watch the movies with him. His standalone movies aren't the issue here, but to compete with big Marvel films like The Avengers, DC will need to make the right decisions to change this character for the better. Because of these character decisions they've made for superman, he is made a character unpairable with other heroes. |
AuthorHi, I'm Canon Stringer. Archives
October 2018
Categories |