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
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorHi, I'm Canon Stringer. Archives
October 2018
Categories |