KHH1

Man who ranted online wins high court ruling

BY DAVID G. SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court made it harder Monday to punish people who post threatening comments online, ruling that prosecutors must show that the sender had the required criminal intent to threaten someone.
Before, most judges had said people could be prosecuted for sending threats online if a “reasonable person” reading the words would think they conveyed a true threat.
But in a case involving hostile comments made on Facebook, the high court rejected that view Monday and decided that people cannot be convicted of the crime of sending threats unless they had an “awareness of some wrongdoing,” which is needed to show criminal intent.
The court’s opinion rested on a subtle point of criminal law and said nothing about the 1st Amendment or free speech. But it is likely to shield people who rant online or muse darkly about carrying out violent acts.
It is a setback for victims of domestic violence, who say prosecutors need more leeway to go after ex-spouses and others who post specific threats on the Internet.
By an 8-1vote, the justices reversed the conviction of Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man who posted on Facebook what he called “therapeutic” rants about his estranged wife.
“Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife?” he asked in one posting. In another, he wrote he would “not rest until your body is a mess, sealed in blood and dying from all the little cuts.”
Her friends alerted authorities. Soon after a female FBI agent came to his house to speak to him, Elonis posted on Facebook that he was about to “pull my knife [and] slit her throat.”
Federal law makes it a crime to transmit “any threat” to “injure” another person. Elonis was prosecuted, convicted by a jury and sent to prison for three years and eight months.
When the Supreme Court took up his appeal in Elonis vs. United States, 1st Amendment advocates hoped for a broad ruling that would strengthen the principle of free speech on the Internet.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., however, said the court decided to focus narrowly on a historic principle of criminal law. Before someone can be convicted of a crime, they should be at least aware that what they were doing was wrong. In this instance, Elonis seemed to believe that his writings were like “rap lyrics” and were protected as free speech.
Roberts said it was an error for the judge to permit the jury to convict Elonis based only on how his posts would be viewed by a reasonable person, a standard used in civil, not criminal, cases. The defendant has to be aware that his rants were true threats, he said.
A defendant can be convicted if he “transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat or with the knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat,” the chief justice said.
While agreeing with the outcome, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. faulted Roberts and his colleagues for handing down a ruling that decides very little.
“This case is certain to cause confusion and serious problems,” Alito wrote in a concurring opinion. The ruling does not clarify what must be proven to win a conviction, he wrote, but instead, “attorneys and judges are left to guess.”
In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said that Elonis’ “general intent” was clear and that his conviction should have been upheld. He also faulted the court for issuing a hazy opinion. “Our job is to decide questions, not create them,” he said.
The ACLU’s Legal Director Steven Shapiro praised the ruling. It “properly recognizes that the law for centuries required the government to prove criminal intent before putting someone in jail,” he said. “The Internet does not change this long-standing rule.” david.savage@latimes.com  

Marcus Johnson

The times they are a changin ! This is crazy. So his threats were like rap lyrics? Oh my!

I am confused .

What's your take on this?
:|

KHH1

Cognitive dissonance....something about when certain people do things it is not so bad. We'll see how this holds uo long term. I do not think it will. Leaves the field too wide open.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

KHH1,

Please, Cite the source URL, until then KHH1, all of your liberal posts are null-&-void and lack all and any credibility on the (OPP) website forum.

Journalism 101 say's:

1. Cite the source URL, the reader, should never have to do your homework for you and have to vet your source material. Unless your so gifted that your words are the original source and these authors are actually citing your works in their articles. Just a thought, to point this out to you.

The readers on this forum are very intelligent and don't need to be mislead by you, me or anyone else. It's called a writers common courtesy to the reader.

Cite the URL: Or this will be the standard reply to your diatribe. Then the (OPP) readers of the website forum will see that your Post-Article (PA) as disingenuous and misleading in your title.



Oh by the way KHH1, just another general journalistic 101observation;

2. The second journalistic observation; KHH1, your titles for this (PA) and several of your past titles and (PA). The titles are quite misleading to the actual article, written by a different author, than your written works.

KHH1, It's called plagiarism, if you use a known authors written work, and use them as your own, It's called plagiarism. Unless you cite the material source work or cite the URL and incorporate the author work into your title and giving credit to them in your title and (PA), then It's called plagiarism.

But KHH1, you already knew this.

Yet KHH1, still you continue ride down this written journalistic 101 plagiarism violation path, that you have taken. It's really time to clean up your act, on the (OPP) website forum and your posted (ehhm), your post article's. Readers can really see through this disguise and false bravado writing style. Its a fake piece of work.

But KHH1, you already knew this.



3. The third journalistic observation is; "Why don't you ever really say, what you really mean" in your title's for your (PA) ? "Why is your message's so cryptic ? And misleading ?

KHH1, Isn't it hypocritical to say to the reader, the title says one thing. But in all actual reality, your title means something totally different than what the (PA) is written about. This is gross violations of Journalism 101.

But KHH1, you already knew this.

For your last titles and (PA's) quite frankly your past several titles and (PA) in question have had some glaring, misleading and contentious false statements, misleading facts incorporated in the title and into the (PA). In which I had to point out to you.

But KHH1, you already knew this.



4. Journalism 101 say's: Isn't that a fallacious argument, a "Red-Herring." This is yet another mis-nomer writing style and journalistic trap, that you weave into your Title's and (PA) on the (OPP) website forum.

KHH1, Lern some journalistic 101 writing etiquette, have some personal integrity; You might have some influence with the reader in-mind and or to better educate the (OPP) website reader. This would benefit you as well as the reader to encourage them, to understand your viewpoint, or dark written liberal philosophy style that you aspire to.

But KHH1, you already knew this.



5. Journalism 101 say's: Better yet, say what you really mean. Don't be cryptic, smart, "holier than thou" in your critical thinking and your God given talents.

Step up to the plate, in the real writers journalistic 101 game. Think man, step up to the big leagues, give the hole world your ten seconds of fame and your future destiny.

Didn't mean to be sarcastic, but this is the reality on the (OPP) website forum.

6. KHH1, enlighten us . . . Oh by the way, another a journalistic 101 observation: The title for your (PA) is called a "Lead-In," for the reader, to entice the reader, to read your pathos and ethos journalistic writing style.

Just a journalistic observation, KHH1. But KHH1, you already knew this.



P.S. Keep writing at your own journalistic 101 peril KHH1, if not, then you marginalize your self and then become an obtuse writer, that is banging-clanging bell, that makes a lot of noise, but the (OPP) readers will never view your (PA) forum opinions ever quite the same... again.

Sure you may get a few core readers on the forum,that's what talking heads do. But you run the danger, of alienating the rest of the (OPP) forum readers.


Just a journalistic observation, KHH1. But KHH1, you already knew this.

Marcus Johnson

I must be missing something. But isn't this article
written by David G Savage?
I don’t see where KHH1 is even attempting to plagiarize anything. He is clearly giving credit to the original author.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

KHH1

do the research dumbazz......develop your skills...if you type in the title the first thing that comes up is the LA Times...and who are the phuck are you to try and lay down some rules for this inbred convention? Also learn to spell the word "learn" as such and not "lern"...i post in the way I choose to provoke thought and see if you all can make the connection between the perspective I offer in the title and the actual article's contents. So until you have written a dissertation...shut the phuck up....i've been down that road years ago....OPP may be relevant to you but you can lose that directive bullshit here...and the bottom line is..,if Admin does not have an issue, you can

Marcus Johnson

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Doc110 Loc: York PA

URL dumb ass

Doc110 Loc: York PA

can't you read

dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)

An NHL Referee in the shower! Cute.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

I know about Michael savage, Dan Homo-liberal Savage.

But I don't subscribe to liberal papers and read articles that are typically biased like David G. Savage Los Angeles times.

Never read anything of importance by him, is this your liberal media God that you have your head up his butt.

He caters to the liberal crowd. I don't, and never will.

The Los Angeles times as well as most liberals are all failing in membership. they are hemorrhaging financially, it even might go away, the west coast liberal bastion.

Don't you know what a URL is ? here is my all-time favorite URL's of all time.
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/150529-Order%20Setting%20Trial%20Clinton%20RICO.pdf

Here is a sampling from the Federal Court docket.
Here is the docket # Case 9:15-cv-80388-DMM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2015 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 15-80388-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS/BRA

LARRY KLAYMAN, Plaintiffs)
VS.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, et al.(Defendants).

ORDER REFERRING CASE AND SETTING TRIAL DATE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-entitled cause is hereby set for Trial before the
Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge, at United States District Court at 701 Clematis Street, Second Floor, Courtroom 7, W est Palm Beach, Florida, during the two-week trial period commencing January 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the case may be called. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a Status Conference/calendar
Call will be held on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 1:15 p.m .
PRESENT. ALL COUNSEL MUST BE
1. JURY TRIALS
PRO POSED ORDERS: Pursuant to the CM /ECF Administrative Procedures, counsel shall send proposed orders in Word format for ALL motions directly to
middebrooks@isd.uscouds.gov.
1Bach Florida, DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of May, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach Florida May, 20l5.

DamnYANKEE

KUNTA ??? WHO T F , Even Cares what You think . :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

DamnYANKEE

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Another bootlip :roll: :roll: :roll: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

http://eaglerising.com/19223/barney-franks-husband-caught-taking-drugs-and-offering-black...


Barney Frank’s “Husband” Caught Taking Drugs and Arguing Liberals should offer Blacks Watermelon for Votes!

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: