www.mozilla.com Weather Central
Voices
Headlines

A note on primitivism -1/29/2015, 9:55 AM

Owning ideas -1/29/2015, 9:55 AM

There's more -1/29/2015, 9:55 AM

Kansas' birthday -1/29/2015, 9:55 AM

Back to the future, locked and loaded -1/28/2015, 9:29 AM

Compromise -- make it happen -1/28/2015, 9:29 AM

Faith v. facts -1/28/2015, 9:29 AM

Counting on Les -1/27/2015, 9:22 AM

Building bills in the Legislature -1/27/2015, 9:22 AM

Tale of the tree -1/27/2015, 9:22 AM

Seismic activity -1/27/2015, 9:22 AM

Where are the good guys? -1/27/2015, 9:21 AM

Brownback's budget -1/26/2015, 9:59 AM

Committee meetings begin -1/26/2015, 9:50 AM

Excitement starts at Capitol -1/26/2015, 9:50 AM

What's happening with oil prices? -1/26/2015, 9:50 AM

Synthetic biology, brave new world -1/26/2015, 9:50 AM

Today's fierce urgency is voter mobilization -1/25/2015, 5:02 PM

Duke, Muslims and politics of intimidation -1/25/2015, 5:02 PM

Right to hunt -1/25/2015, 5:02 PM

Pipeline: Foreign profits, American risk -1/23/2015, 7:47 AM

Social Darwinist 'Christianity' -- Chapter 3 -1/23/2015, 7:47 AM

Kiwanis generosity -1/23/2015, 7:47 AM

The state economy -1/22/2015, 10:23 AM

Restate of the union -1/22/2015, 10:23 AM

France needs our First Amendment -1/22/2015, 10:23 AM

Repurposing Washington -1/20/2015, 9:31 AM

March for Life -1/20/2015, 9:31 AM

Brownback, the budget and schools -1/20/2015, 9:31 AM

Sensible checks are no assault on gun rights -1/19/2015, 9:50 AM

Jeb Bush chooses expedience on marriage issue -1/19/2015, 9:50 AM

The State of the State Address and the legislative session -1/19/2015, 8:47 AM

Spending's not the culprit in budget woes -1/18/2015, 3:32 PM

Pilgrim's paradise -1/18/2015, 3:32 PM

Spring elections -1/18/2015, 3:23 PM

Kobach is back -1/16/2015, 3:04 PM

More with Les -1/16/2015, 10:03 AM

Understanding Hooper -1/16/2015, 10:02 AM

Basic economics -1/16/2015, 10:01 AM

Female governance -1/15/2015, 9:37 AM

2015 energy policy -- a unique opportunity -1/15/2015, 9:37 AM

The better option -1/15/2015, 9:36 AM

'Wall Street' a waste -1/14/2015, 2:50 PM

Trade already -1/14/2015, 2:49 PM

No media bias? -1/14/2015, 2:48 PM

Retirement funds -1/14/2015, 2:47 PM

Redefining public education in Kansas -1/13/2015, 10:06 AM

What the future holds -1/13/2015, 10:06 AM

Efficient education -1/13/2015, 10:06 AM

Terrorists usher in the 'End of Satire' -1/12/2015, 9:14 AM

Sexuality, lame logic, substandard science -1/12/2015, 9:14 AM

A tragic family story -1/11/2015, 12:11 PM

For freedom, LGBT rights, a year of decision -1/11/2015, 12:11 PM

Roberts' promotion -1/11/2015, 12:11 PM

FHSU campaign -1/11/2015, 12:11 PM

Fairness in U.S. -1/9/2015, 3:05 PM

Liberals' use of black people -- Part II -1/9/2015, 9:09 AM

Social Darwinist 'Christians' -- Chapter 2 -1/9/2015, 9:09 AM

Taxing situation -1/9/2015, 9:09 AM

Trust: Society depends on it -1/8/2015, 9:55 AM

Education schools lack a paradigm -1/8/2015, 9:55 AM

Congress convenes -1/7/2015, 10:07 AM

Simple way to fix gridlock: change committees -1/7/2015, 10:06 AM

Kansas is your customer -1/7/2015, 10:06 AM

Large budget shortfalls await solution -1/6/2015, 10:06 AM

The state and funding K-12 education -1/6/2015, 10:06 AM

Tree removal -1/6/2015, 10:06 AM

Republicans won -- now what? -1/5/2015, 9:13 AM

Social Darwinist religion, Chapter 1 -1/5/2015, 9:13 AM

Liberals' use of black people -1/2/2015, 9:53 AM

Ignorance abounds -1/2/2015, 9:53 AM

Superbug dilemma -1/2/2015, 9:53 AM

Thanks North Korea -12/31/2014, 1:26 PM

Sony gets the last laugh -12/31/2014, 1:26 PM

Free speech -12/31/2014, 1:16 PM

New Year's resolutions -- sort of -12/31/2014, 9:22 AM

A flat-footed backflip for Wall Street -12/31/2014, 9:22 AM

Dim the lights -12/31/2014, 9:22 AM

Some near-sure bets for the new year -12/31/2014, 9:21 AM

Adios, Rick Perry -12/30/2014, 8:20 AM

Budget strife means high-anxiety session -12/30/2014, 8:20 AM

Time for caution -12/30/2014, 8:20 AM

-12/29/2014, 10:01 AM

Court's raw deal -12/29/2014, 10:01 AM

Chris Christie's pork barrel politics -12/29/2014, 10:00 AM

A Festivus Miracle -12/27/2014, 4:18 PM

Faith, not politics, keeps Christ in Christmas -12/27/2014, 4:18 PM

EPA rule falls short -12/27/2014, 4:18 PM

2014: The year in Kansas higher education -12/26/2014, 9:39 AM

Methane from cattle -12/26/2014, 9:39 AM

Black progression and retrogression -12/26/2014, 9:38 AM

Up-Lyft-ing Christmas tale -12/25/2014, 1:22 PM

Terrorism on soft targets -12/25/2014, 1:22 PM

Story of Christmas -12/25/2014, 1:22 PM

Fabricated column -12/24/2014, 8:21 AM

The Christmas spirit dwells in us all -12/24/2014, 8:21 AM

Celebrating life -12/24/2014, 8:21 AM

A visit from St. Nicholas -12/24/2014, 8:21 AM

A look ahead to the Legislature -12/23/2014, 9:34 AM

There is a Santa Claus -12/23/2014, 9:34 AM

myTown Calendar

SPOTLIGHT
[var top_story_head]

Examining the importance of 'where' we speak

Published on -6/22/2014, 5:56 PM

Printer-friendly version
E-Mail This Story

When we say something that might be threatening, how much does where we say it matter?

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed this week to examine that question from a new angle -- the increasingly popular method of online comments and posts on social media, as distinct from directed or face-to-face exchanges.

The First Amendment generally shields us from being punished for what we say, but there are exceptions, among them what is called a "true threat."

Courts have used two approaches in dealing with threats. One requires police and prosecutors to show the person making the threat genuinely intended harm. The other -- and one used more often in recent years -- is whether "a reasonable person" would be put in genuine fear for their safety or their life.

Threats also need to be real to meet these tests. Wishing aloud a certain person would be struck by a meteor, for example, might be crude and tactless, but clearly the speaker cannot make that occur. Threats must also be made to a certain person or identifiable group.

Threatening to kill someone during a face-to-face argument, or via a letter or phone call, likely would warrant prosecution.

But now it seems the court will come face-to-face with a technological twist -- one that will ask them to further define or finally endorse one of the two legal standards: What if the threats are comments or posts on a social network such as Facebook? Are such posts -- not specifically sent to a person, who might be named -- enough to support a "reasonable person" standard?

The court also might well consider what to make of the distinctions based in individual privacy settings on various social media websites, which can range from posts that are totally public, through layers in which posts are directed to individuals' accounts or small group "walls" but still public, to directed posts more like a personal email or phone call.

The case before the court involves a husband and wife who separated in 2010. Court records show Anthony Elonis sometime later began writing on his Facebook page about killing his wife and others, including an FBI agent who was investigating his actions.

Elonis later defended his posts as just "therapeutic," even art in the style of rap lyrics, and claimed they did not meet the legal requirements of a "true threat." However, when the gory postings continued, and the subjects of his rants felt threatened, Elonis was convicted of violating a federal law that prohibits the use of interstate communications for threats to individuals, and sentenced to nearly four years in prison.

Elonis said he never actually intended to harm anyone, and the existing law was drawn up in a pre-Internet era, and ought to now be adjusted to recognize a new form of expression on sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

Legal scholars and Elonis' lawyers note courts even now differ on how and when to apply the two existing standards.

In 2002, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a juvenile court conviction of a high school student for writing rap lyrics it said were a "true threat" of physical violence. In that case, the lyrics were written specifically for a fellow student, delivered to her and she was, the court said, "intensely frightened and upset" by the threat and believed the juvenile might follow through on the threat because he had a criminal record.

But in 2012, a federal appeals court in California refused to reinstate the conviction of an Arizona man accused of planning a Super Bowl massacre, saying a rambling "manifesto" did not constitute a threat to people, since it was addressed to media outlets not specific persons, and that man's threat to "test the theory that bullets speak louder than words" was not sufficient to support a conviction under federal law.

The Supreme Court arguments will focus on how to apply to Elonis' arguments to the latest decision it made on "true threats." In 2003, in Virginia v. Black, the court struck down a state law that held any cross-burning was a form of intimidation, saying proof of "threat of intimidation" was required, since the action could be what the court called a "message of shared ideology."

In upholding Elonis' conviction, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said while an action such as cross-burning might or might not always constitute a threat, Elonis' Facebook posts made specific threats to named individuals -- thus avoiding a conflict with Virginia v. Black.

The issue raised by Elonis is whether the online distance social media puts between the person "speaking" and those "listening" makes all the difference between protection and prosecution.

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute's First Amendment Center.

gpolicinski@newseum.org

digg delicious facebook stumbleupon google Newsvine
More News and Photos

Associated Press Videos

AP Breaking News