supreme court

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.

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 experimental cocktail of drugs used in the lethal injection of Oklahoma’s first double execution in 80 years improperly killed one man sparking controversy nationwide.

Clayton Lockett and Charles Warner were both scheduled to be executed Tuesday, April 28, in an Oklahoma correctional center.

Lockett was first and was executed with a concoction of three drugs: midazolam to cause unconsciousness, vecuronium bromide to stop respiration and potassium chloride to stop the heart, the LA Times reports.

This mixture was injected into Lockett’s body and he appeared to be unconscious, but after several minutes passed, it was clear the injections weren’t having the anticipated effects. He began twitching and eventually seizing.

Lockett eventually died of a massive heart attack due to the explosion of a vein, USA Today said.

The botched execution is only part of the controversy at hand. The constitutional whirlwind taking place in Oklahoma is causing an even bigger uproar as the state Supreme Court reversed itself as a reaction to pressure from Oklahoma officials to proceed with the executions.

The Oklahoma state Supreme Court responded to a civil suit filed by Lockett and Warner requesting information on the lethal drugs to be used during the execution. Justices delayed the double execution in a 5-4 decision, putting into question the state’s injection secrecy law which allows state officials to keep basic information about the injections under wraps.

Soon after that decision was made, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin stated that she would not follow the Supreme Court’s orders and threatened to proceed with the state appellate court’s decision to carry on with the execution, according to the LA Times.

Republican state lawmaker, Rep. Mike Christian also refused to accept the state Supreme Court’s orders and introduced impeachment proceedings against each of the justices, The Week said.

Both officials believe that the Oklahoma Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries by delaying the case because of a state law that separates the duties of the two high courts.

The appellate court manages civil matters and the Supreme Court manages criminal matters, so Gov. Fallin and Rep. Christian do not believe the justices had a right to delay the execution, The Week said.

The Supreme Court reversed itself a day later stating that Lockett and Warner were given adequate information. The delay was removed, keeping the executions on-track with the April 28 date, the LA Times reports.

Since Lockett’s failed execution, Warner’s execution has been postponed for two weeks by Gov. Fallin who asked for a review of the state’s execution procedures to determine what exactly went wrong.

Questions about the constitutionality of the death penalty are rapidly surfacing.

Warner’s attorney, Madeline Cohen, spoke out against the continuance of the death penalty in Oklahoma until the procedures there, and in other states practicing the death penalty, become transparent.

“Tonight, in a climate of secrecy and political posturing, Oklahoma intends to kill two death row prisoners using an experimental new drug protocol, including a paralytic, making it impossible to know whether the executions will comport with the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual suffering,” she said before the execution, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Oklahoma isn’t the only state with lethal injection secrecy laws. Missouri and Louisiana do as well, resulting very little information on the execution procedure. Other states, like Georgia, are debating the constitutionality of introducing these secrecy laws.

The impact of this case is far reaching, as the nation is questioning the constitutionality of the death penalty altogether, the capability of prison authorities to administer lethal injections and whether or not these injections violate the 8th Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

For now, Gov. Fallin has not said if Warner’s two week period could be extended, so he and Cohen will wait for results of Lockett’s execution review and proceed from there.