SCOTUS Rules Internet Threats Are Protected by First Amendment Unless Malevolent, Reckless
Threats made over the Internet are protected unless they're malevolent or reckless, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in Elonis v. U.S. (see 1406180074). After his wife left him, petitioner Anthony Douglas Elonis used the pseudonym “Tone Dougie” on social…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
networking sites like Facebook to post self-styled rap lyrics containing graphically violent language and imagery about his wife, co-workers, a kindergarten class, and state and federal law enforcement. Elonis used disclaimers to say the lyrics were “fictitious,” not intended to depict real persons, and that he was exercising his First Amendment rights. The American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy & Technology and Cato Institute were among groups that filed a joint brief on behalf of Elonis (see 1412020054). Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court in the 7-2 decision. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissenting opinion. In a news release, Rutherford Institute attorneys applauded the Supreme Court’s decision and said “[i]n order to protect the First Amendment rights of speakers, courts must ensure that they are criminalizing more than just the unrealized and unrealizable fears of particularly sensitive listeners.” The Rutherford Institute is representing Brandon Raub, a Marine who was arrested, detained in a psychiatric ward and forced to undergo psychological evaluations based solely on the controversial nature of lines from song lyrics, political messages and virtual card games that he posted to his private Facebook page, the release said. “Whether it’s a Marine arrested for criticizing the government on Facebook or an ex-husband jailed for expressing his frustrations through rap lyrics on Facebook, the end result is the same -- the criminalization of free speech,” Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead said. “While social media and the Internet have become critical forums for individuals to freely share information and express their ideas, they have unfortunately also become tools for the government to monitor, control and punish the populace for behavior and speech that may be controversial but are far from criminal,” he said.