first amendment

In the Supreme Court’s first opinion regarding social media, the majority held that posting a threat online isn’t a federal crime without proof of the person’s mental state.

This opinion was a result of the Supreme Court case Elonis V. United States, in which Anthony Douglas Elonis was arrested for posting rap lyrics on Facebook that contained threatening statements.

Elonis violated a federal criminal statute that makes it a crime to transmit in interstate commerce “any communication containing any threat . . . to injure the person of another,” The National Law Review reports.

He was convicted on multiple counts for threats, which he challenged in the Supreme Court based on his First Amendment rights. Elonis said that posting the graphic, violent lyrics about his wife, an FBI agent and children was a therapeutic and artistic expression, not an actual threat.

Recently, The Supreme Court reversed his convictions using the principle that “wrongdoing must be conscious to the criminal,” meaning that the mental state of the person involved matters, not just the authenticity of the threat, when deciding if the posts are a criminal offense.

This ruling does not touch on the intent behind posting threats online, which makes social media cases like this more of a criminal law issue than a First Amendment issue.

With this new ruling in place, could your Facebook posts still get you arrested?

Yes, you could still be arrested for posting threats on Facebook or any other online or social media platform. If your mentality was to cause harm and your threats were genuine you could be arrested.

Also, if you incriminate yourself online or your social media account’s location settings, online relationships or posts connect you to a crime, you could be arrested.

However, when it comes to posting threatening messages online, that act is not a federal crime without proof of your mental state.

A small church in Gilbert, Arizona has taken its sign case to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping to change the city’s code, which depending on the outcome, could directly impact future rulings regarding First Amendment rights.

Signs advertising real estate agents and political campaigns populate streets and sidewalks for weeks at a time, while others are restricted to more specific dates and sizes, leading the church to believe that its free speech rights have been violated.

The First Amendment issue facing this case is content neutrality. Content-neutral regulations aim not to limit speech but to provide regulations based on the circumstances of how types of speech can take place.

Good News Presbyterian Church rents space to hold its services for approximately 30 adults and 10 children. Good News pastor Clyde Reed argues that the sign code in place in Gilbert is discriminatory because it specifies the size of the signs he can put up to advertise the church’s religious services as well as the number of signs and how long they are permitted to stay posted.

Directional signs posted in public places, like local neighborhoods and retirement communities, must not exceed 6 square feet, can be posted no earlier than 12 hours before the event and must be taken down within an hour after the event’s end. By contrast, political signs may be as large as 20 square feet and can remain posted for the duration of a political campaign, The Washington Post said.

The city said that Reed’s rights have not been violated by the sign code because all non-commercial signs must follow the same rules, regardless of content. However, Alliance Defending Freedom, the Scottsdale-based conservative Christian activist group representing Reed, argues that Gilbert’s code may not be content neutral just because the city said it does not discriminate based on content, azcentral reports.

The Supreme Court appears to be leaning in favor of the church; but their ruling could simply affect the Gilbert ordinance and little else, or the justices could take a broader ruling that could affect future free speech cases.

Reed first sued Gilbert in 2007, after the he was cited for posting signs too early. Since then, other courts have ruled in favor of the city.

Several religious activist groups and the Obama administration support Reed and are urging the Supreme Court to change the city’s sign ordinance, The Washington Post said.

An opinion is expected to be given by the Supreme Court by June.

The guidance of an experienced attorney can make all the difference when it comes to defending your rights, which is why you shouldn’t take on a case alone.

If you’re looking for a trustworthy attorney, contact Corso Law Group today. Your case will be handled by a licensed Arizona or Texas attorney.

An Ohio football player, Nick Andre, was suspended from Rittman High School for four days and kicked off his football team after writing a poem about his frustration with the team.

Andre wrote the poem, which he titled “Stupid”, as part of a project in his English class. Andre felt that he was just expressing his opinion and had the right to speak out under free speech.

The principal of Rittman claimed that his poem was a form of harassment and bullying.

Andre said he was astonished by his school’s reaction to the poem because he was doing an assignment for class and did not think that it would cause the problem it did. He told Fox 8 News, “It’s like wow, just over doing my school work I get in trouble, get thrown off the football team … (and) get suspended for four days, which could potentially really mess up my grades,”

The poem references the coach of the football team and a “star-player” who constantly “misses passes”. Andre did not use any names but the head football coach is Bill Dennis, who has a son on the team and is committed to play at Akron University.

Andre’s mother is also not happy about the principal’s decision to suspend her son from school and kick him off the football team, expressing that it is not a form of bullying when the teacher asked her students to write a poem about something that they were frustrated with.

This story has become national news and is making headlines all over the country because many believe Andre’s actions to be protected by free speech and that he should not be punished for expressing his feelings.

Here’s the poem in question:

“Losing season,

Favoritism,

Non stop passes from best friend to best friend,

Continuously doing what doesn’t work,

The inability to separate being a father and a coach,

Dropped passes,

But yet still the “super star”,

Yeah right.

Where’s my scholarship?

I can drop passes,

Run backwards,

Miss tackles,

And be afraid to take a hit.

That’s top of the line Div. 1 material right there.

If that’s what they wanted,

They definitely got it.

This whole town will be glad when he’s gone.

For anyone who doesn’t understand what I’m saying,

AKRON’S SCREWED!”