aclu

Lately, several incidents concerning people posting online threats have been in the news. From the controversy at University of Missouri to other violent online threats directed towards a Dallas high school, cyber threats are being taken much more seriously. Legally though, are online threats equally as punishable as in-person verbal threats?

The answer is dependent upon each case but in the situation that took place at the University of Missouri, the answer was yes. Two college students were arrested for making death threats against African American students over an online social media app called Yik Yak.

The University of Missouri first issued a security alert to all students and faculty, they were able to find those that made the threats and proceeded to arrest them. In this case, the threats were directed at a specific group of individuals and categorized as terrorist threats.

These death threats and other online threats are illegal in most cases, just as they would be in person. However, this past June, the Supreme Court specified the legal repercussions concerning online threats and arresting those involved.

The Supreme Court ruled that an online threat is not criminal unless the person writing the threat planned for it to be understand as legitimate and others believed this as well.

In discussing the decision of the Supreme Court, ACLU legal director Steven R. Shapiro said the “decision properly recognizes that the law has for centuries required the government to prove criminal intent before putting someone in jail.”

The decision comes at a time when these threats will have to be more deeply assessed. Another important factor when considering the prosecution of an online threat is determining the mental health of the person posting the threat.

In the decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Federal criminal liability generally does not turn solely on the results of an act without considering the defendant’s mental state.”

Overall while each case is determined separately, online threats are not taken lightly and can result in similar if not worse repercussions than in personal threats.

A district court judge has blocked an Arizona “revenge porn” law due to concerns about restrictions it may place on First Amendment rights.

An agreement was reached by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton to prohibit prosecutors from enforcing the law so that publishers, booksellers, librarians and photographers are allowed to use nude photos, for which they may not have written consent, when they represent “newsworthy, artistic, and historical speech,” AZ Family reports.

Previously, prosecutors were allowed to go after “revenge porn” offenders, but these effort have been stopped by the American Civil Liberties Union, which claimed that the statute was too broad and violated First Amendment rights like free speech.

In 2014, the Arizona Legislature passed statute A.R.S. 13-1425, which addressed the unlawful distribution of these types of images. Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, sponsored the bill in hopes of making the distribution of nude photos of a person without their written consent a felony offense.

With this new agreement in place, how should these types of cases be prosecuted? Is free speech more important than a person’s right to privacy?

These are both questions that will have to be answered from case to case as victims of “revenge porn” seek legal help. However, the public should be able to protect both their First Amendment and privacy rights without one being favored over the other.

With technology and social media reaching new heights every day, “revenge porn” is developing into a serious problem, especially as it becomes easier to take, send and distribute photos online in a matter of seconds.

By blocking prosecutors from enforcing the “revenge porn” law altogether, victims of this offense must face humiliation, destroyed intimate relationships as well as potentially limited professional and educational opportunities.

Mesnard introduced a revised version of the law in response to the ACLU’s lawsuit, but it failed in the Senate. He plans to try again during the next legislative session with new elements that could take care of the First Amendment complaints.

The revisions would require prosecutors to prove malicious intent was behind the posting and that the person in the photos had an expectation of privacy when they were taken.

Tasers are used by 15,000 law enforcement and military bodies in the U.S. as an alternative to lethal weapons when force is necessary to subdue a person in a threatening situation.

However, recent criticism of police use of force has led to the scrutiny of police use of Tasers, and whether they are actually safer than guns and other weapons.

When fired, Tasers emit a 50,000-volt shock of electricity to the body, which overrides the central nervous system of whoever was struck, leading to an instant collapse as well as uncontrollable muscle contractions, according to a report by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center.

The fall, due to lack of muscle control, is often the cause of more serious injuries relating to the use of a Taser. In general, however, the company claims the shock doesn’t typically cause serious or lasting harm to the average person. Instead, the Taser International website says Tasers have saved more than 140,000 lives, and that injuries are reduced by up to 60 percent when alternative means of force are used.

This may not be true, however, for a significant number of people who are not considered average in terms of health.

For pregnant women and those who have certain health problems including cardiovascular issues, mental illness, heart conditions and high blood pressure, a Taser shock can cause serious injuries and death in some cases.

Dontay Ivy, an Albany man with heart problems and paranoid schizophrenia, died after being shot with a Taser and wrestling police to the ground earlier this year. The cause of death is still being investigated, but Ivy’s family plans to press charges for negligence, racial profiling and excessive force.

Others extreme cases, like that of South Carolina man Walter Scott, involve the use of a Taser in combination with other weapons as the cause of death. North Charleston police officer Michael Slager was fired and later charged with murder for using excessive force against Scott.

These cases bring into question whether Tasers are an acceptable method for police to control a situation, or if their use encourages unnecessary force.

Geoffrey P. Alpert, a criminology professor at the University of South Carolina who researches police use of force, said in the New York Times that Tasers could be effective tools when used properly, but he cautioned that many officers in the United States had come to rely on them excessively.

“Officers need to be spending more time de-escalating situations, instead of resorting to the use of this very convenient tool,” said Emma Andersson, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “The jury’s still out on whether or not it’s lethal force, but it’s not nothing; it’s very dangerous.”

Others, like Taser International’s spokesman Steve Tuttle, who argues that they are no magic bullet, but they are “safe, effective and accountable” devices.

Currently, no extensive report on the use of Tasers exists, but it seems that all parties can agree that Tasers are dangerous, and must be used with caution. A guideline by the U.S. Justice Department from 2011 sets the standard, stating that Tasers are weapons, and should be used out of necessity, not convenience.

Texas and Arizona are two of nine states currently implementing “No-Refusal” initiatives for DUI stops.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sponsors special DUI efforts called “No-Refusal” DUI Weekend Initiatives that enforce blood alcohol content testing for those who are arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Currently, nine states including Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Texas and Utah conduct.

The “No-Refusal” program is an enforcement strategy that allows police to more easily obtain search warrants for blood samples from suspected impaired drivers who have refused to consent to breath tests, the NHTSA said.

During these “No-Refusal” weekends, officers are allowed to request warrants via phone from on-call judges or magistrates.

This enables law enforcement to legally acquire proper blood samples from drivers who refuse to give a breath sample. During these specified enforcement efforts, prosecutors and judges make themselves available to streamline the warrant acquisition process and help build solid cases that can lead to impaired driving convictions.

Under normal DUI checkpoint and arrests circumstances in general, the driver is taken to a hospital for blood to be drawn if a judge issues a warrant for the test. During “No Refusal” initiatives, a registered nurse is at a jail to draw blood onsite.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticizes “No-Refusal” policies because they violate the driver’s rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Some judges agree, and refuse to participate in these efforts because of legal uncertainties regarding the mass warrant issuing process.

Others say that “No-Refusal” weekends are like any other day for law enforcement.

“That officer has a legal avenue (of seeking a warrant from a judge) that they can take regardless of the ‘No Refusal’ weekend,” Johnny Poulos, director of public affairs for the Mississippi Highway Patrol, said in USA Today about a recently conducted “No-Refusal” initiative.

The chance of being caught driving drunk, arrested and convicted increase when “No-Refusal” checkpoints are taking place, so efforts are often highly publicized. The public is made aware of the consequences, and judges are notified of the initiatives as well because of the increased amount of calls they will receive from officers for warrants.