Weather
The Pine Tree, News for Calaveras County and Beyond Weather
Amador Angels Camp Arnold Bear Valley Copperopolis Murphys San Andreas Valley Springs Moke Hill/West Point Tuolumne
News
Business Directory
Weather & Roads
Sports
Real Estate
Search
Weekly & Grocery Ads
Entertainment
Life & Style
Government
Law Enforcement
Business
Wine News
Health & Fitness
Home & Garden
Food & Dining
Religion & Faith
Frogtown USA
Calendar
Polls
Columns
Free Classifieds
Letters to the Editor
Obituaries
About Us


Log In
Username

Password

Remember Me



Posted by: thepinetree on 06/01/2015 09:38 AM Updated by: thepinetree on 06/01/2015 09:40 AM
Expires: 01/01/2020 12:00 AM
:



Supreme Court Reaffirms Free Speech Rights In Facebook Comment Case

Washington, DC...The US Supreme Court Today reaffirmed free speech rights when it overturned a conviction of a man convicted when he made online rants against his ex-wife. From the syllabus "After his wife left him, petitioner Anthony Douglas Elonis, under the pseudonym “Tone Dougie,” used the social networking Web site Facebook to post self-styled rap lyrics containing graphically violent language and imagery concerning his wife, co-workers, a kindergarten class, and state and federal law enforcement. These posts were often interspersed with disclaimers that the lyrics were “fictitious”and not intended to depict real persons, and with statements that Elonis was exercising his First Amendment rights. Many who knew him saw his posts as threatening, however, including his boss, who fired him for threatening co-workers, and his wife, who sought and was granted a state court protection-from-abuse order against him...

Supreme_Court_US_2010
Click Above For Ruling


When Elonis’s former employer informed the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation of the posts, the agency began monitoring Elonis’s Face- book activity and eventually arrested him. He was charged with five counts of violating 18 U. S. C. §875(c), which makes it a federal crime to transmit in interstate commerce “any communication containingany threat . . . to injure the person of another.” At trial, Elonis requested a jury instruction that the Government was required toprove that he intended to communicate a “true threat.” Instead, the District Court told the jury that Elonis could be found guilty if a reasonable person would foresee that his statements would be interpreted as a threat. Elonis was convicted on four of the five counts and renewed his jury instruction challenge on appeal. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that Section 875(c) requires only the intent tocommunicate words that the defendant understands, and that a reasonable person would view as a threat."


Comments - Make a comment
The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content. We value free speech but remember this is a public forum and we hope that people would use common sense and decency. If you see an offensive comment please email us at news@thepinetree.net

What's Related
These might interest you as well
Local News

Calendar

Photo Albums

phpws Business Directory


Mark Twain Medical Center
Meadowmont Pharmacy
Angels & San Andreas Memorial Chapels
Bear Valley Real Estate
Gerard Insurance
Bank of Stockton
Fox Security
Bistro Espresso
Chatom Winery
Middleton's Furniture
Bear Valley Mountain Resort
Cave, Mine & Zip Lines
High Country Spa & Stove
Ebbetts Pass Scenic Byway
Sierra Logging Museum Calaveras Mentoriing
Jenny's Kitchen

Copyright © The Pine Tree 2005-2023