Online speech case heads to high court – By Julian Hattem – 11/29/14 12:16 PM EST


The Supreme Court is preparing to weigh in on a landmark free speech case that raises crucial questions about the First Amendment in the age of the Internet.

Greg Nash

The high court next week will sit down to decide whether or not police need to prove that people posting threats online actually intend to carry them out.

Free speech groups warned ahead of Monday morning’s arguments that a ruling in favor of the government “runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed.”

“As more and more speech moves onto the Internet, the constitutional protections afforded to online speech will increasingly determine the actual scope of First Amendment freedoms enjoyed by our society,” the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology and other organizations warned in a friend-of-the-court brief.

The court needs to determine that intention matters, they added, “to ensure that protected online speech is neither punished nor chilled.”

The case centers on Anthony Elonis, who posted a number of violent, expletive-laden Facebook messages after he and his wife, Tara, separated.

In one, he asked if her court protection order was “thick enough to stop a bullet.” In another, he expressed regret for not smothering her with a pillow, dropping her off in a creek and making it “look like a rape and murder.”

After the split, Elonis was fired from his job at an Allentown, Pa., amusement park over a post that some of his coworkers took to be a threat against them.

He was sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison for the threats. But Elonis says that the rants are essentially harmless and were intended to be raps in the style of Eminem or the Odd Future rap collective.

One post urging his sister-in-law to dress up his children as “matricide” on Halloween, for example, was accompanied by an emoticon of a face sticking its tongue out, his lawyers noted, “which he understood to be an indication a post is meant in jest.”

Article continues:

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/technology/225444-online-speech-case-heads-to-high-court

Senate Dems vow vote to change Constitution, block campaign funding – By Stephen Dinan-The Washington Times Wednesday, April 30, 2014


In what amounts to a declaration of war on the Roberts Supreme Court,Senate Democrats said Wednesday that they will force a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to overturn several landmark First Amendment campaign finance rulings and give Congress explicit powers to set donation and spending limits for all federal campaigns.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat driving the effort, said the justices have taken the First Amendment too far and need to be reeled in byCongress.


SEE ALSO: Ex-Justice Stevens backs amendment on campaign funds


He said he had the blessing of fellow Democratic leaders to bring the amendment to the floor for a vote “rather soon.” They acknowledged that they have little hope of succeeding but said the vote was a way to send a message to the justices.

“The First Amendment is not absolute,” Mr. Schumer said. “The only way that we can save American democracy, so that people still believe it’s one person, one vote and there’s a semblance of fairness, is a constitutional amendment.”

The move kicks off a fundamental debate over free speech, the limits of congressional powers and the nature of political campaigns.

Opponents said they were shocked that Democrats would attempt to amend the Constitution to limit something that the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right and that the move was another way to try to insulate lawmakers from having to hear from voters.

“Campaign finance reform restrictions are always pitched as ‘Let’s prevent corruption, let’s hold politicians accountable,’ and they do exactly the opposite,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican. “Every single restriction this body puts in place is designed to do one thing — protect incumbent politicians.”

Campaign finance has been a touchy issue for decades but has taken on a more pointed tone in recent years.

In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama scolded the justices, sitting directly in front of him in the House chamber, for their Citizens United decision issued just days earlier.

In that case, a divided Supreme Court ruled that interest groups could raise and spend money freely to run ads defending their positions in elections. That struck down key parts of the campaign finance laws Congress enacted, including parts of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

Democrats argue that the court has unleashed a spree of big-spending billionaires intent on distorting democracy. On Wednesday, they again singled out the Koch brothers, who support conservative causes.

But the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign spending is free speech and thus entitled to strong First Amendment protections, particularly in cases in which members of Congress disagree with what is being said.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in his majority opinion in this year’s McCutcheon v. FEC case. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

One of Chief Justice Roberts’ former colleagues, retired Justice John Paul Stevens, testified to the Senate on Wednesday that the court has it wrong. He said that when elections are at stake, Congress should be allowed to impose a level playing field for all candidates.

“While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech,” he told the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.