The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Ha!

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Interesting case.

Elonis v. United States, 13-983:

The case has drawn widespread attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted. They point out that a message on Facebook intended for a small group could be taken out of context when viewed by a wider audience.

"A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speaker's intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed," said a brief from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

So far, most lower courts have rejected that view, ruling that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.

For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks."

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Interesting case.

Elonis v. United States, 13-983:

It should be an interesting decision. This court has been pretty protective of speech.

Tone Dougie obviously has some issues, and it sounds like his ex made a very good decision to get as far away as possible from him. Here, though, is what bothers me about this type of social media "threat." How real of a threat is it? So we have another internet tough guy. They're a dime a dozen. Also, how much of a threat can it be if you don't even know if they'll get it or read it? If someone is being a jerk, block them or drop them or put them on ignore.

If you come to my house and say, "I'm going to kill you," that's a serious threat. This guy's antics were just those of a clown.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

If you come to my house and say, "I'm going to kill you," that's a serious threat. This guy's antics were just those of a clown.

If you send a letter through the mail to X that says "I want to kill Y," what happens?

If you send a letter through the mail that says "I want to kill you," what happens?

If you put a note on a public bulletin board that says "I want to kill X," what happens?

I don't know the answer to any of these things, but I think the Facebook threat is closer and closer to each.

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Interesting case.

Elonis v. United States, 13-983:

HA! Beat you to it by 8 days!

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

HA! Beat you to it by 8 days!

Oops. Sorry.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

If you send a letter through the mail to X that says "I want to kill Y," what happens?

If you send a letter through the mail that says "I want to kill you," what happens?

If you put a note on a public bulletin board that says "I want to kill X," what happens?

I don't know the answer to any of these things, but I think the Facebook threat is closer and closer to each.

I'm of a view that #2 is the worst of all, because it's a threat made to that person about that person.

I think this is where the protective/harassment/restraining orders come into play. Someone posts something that sounds threatening or harassing, or someone calls you, or sends you a letter, get the order. Then, if they do it again, they've committed a legitimate crime. They have basically committed contempt of court. Send them to jail.

I'm sure the criminal defense lawyers here can shed better light on it, but I have a lot of trouble prosecuting someone for putting up a sign on a public message board that basically says "I wish X were dead" or "I should have killed X when I had the chance" or similar such nonsense.

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

#2 is the worst by far. It is a direct threat.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I have a lot of trouble prosecuting someone for putting up a sign on a public message board that basically says "I wish X were dead" or "I should have killed X when I had the chance" or similar such nonsense.

Agreed. "I wish..." can't be criminal; it's a thought.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Another 9 - 0 reprimand to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals....

In Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, employees filed a putative class-action suit against a company that ships for Amazon.com , claiming workers were entitled to back pay for time waiting to go through a metal detector to and from work.

The 1947 Portal to Portal Act drew clear boundaries around activities that count as part of the official workday for which employees should be paid. Congress wrote the law to address an avalanche of some 1,500 lawsuits filed by unions and employees after the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act passed. Activities had to be “integral and indispensable” to getting the job done.

The Ninth Circuit “erred by focusing on whether an employer required a particular activity,” Justice Thomas wrote for the Court, when the “test is tied to the productive work that the employee is employed to perform.” Under the Court’s precedents, butchers sharpening their knives can count, for instance, but not poultry-plant workers waiting to put on protective gear.

Joined by Justice Elena Kagan , Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a concurrence that the case was not about worker safety. “As our precedents make clear, the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 is primarily concerned with defining the beginning and end of the workday.”

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Sotomayor has a solo dissent on Heien v. North Carolina, where the majority holds that a reasonable mistake of law by an officer is not grounds for tossing evidence.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-604_ec8f.pdf

I'm with Sotomayor on this one. This is liable to prompt a lot of "reasonable" "mistakes".

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Holy ****. She was the only one? Jeebus.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Based on the outline of the case, I think it's the correct decision for this particular stop, but setting precedent like that definitely opens up a can of worms going forward.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Why are the USCHO conservative posters always silent when a ruling like this gets handed down?

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Why are the USCHO conservative posters always silent when a ruling like this gets handed down?

Are you talking about the North Carolina criminal case?

I suspect most people who read or hear about that case have this reaction. The cops stopped a guy and discovered he had cocaine in his car. He was convicted of having the cocaine. What's the problem?

The general public may understand the need for probable cause to stop someone, or search their car. But in this case the guy's taillight was out. Arcane legal arguments about whether one light or both had to be out, and "reasonable mistakes" of law or fact go right past most of the public, liberal or conservative.