Coming up on the one year anniversary of the Elonis v. United States Supreme Court case, an associate professor at the Walter Cronkite School used the case as an ideal example of the issue of cyberbullying and the First Amendment.
“What we are looking at here tonight is a big issue, one bigger than just Facebook and the First Amendment,” Joseph Russomanno said.
Russomanno discussed the facts of the case and cyberbullying on Monday at the Cronkite School, in the school’s own First Amendment Forum.
David J. Bodney, Cronkite Endowment Board President and Ballard Spahr LLP Partner, introduced Russomanno.
“The western democracies are very speech-friendly jurisdictions,” Bodney said. “Some would say they are too speech friendly, and the United States is the most speech permissive of them all.”
“Our First Amendment gives wide birth to speech, which is a beautiful thing, and yet we have become a magnet for hate speech, particularly on the internet,” Bodney said.
“Like most people in my field of media law, I tend to be an advocate, not surprisingly, for the First Amendment and freedom of speech and press, but not in this case. This one is the exception,” Russomanno said.
Anthony Elonis was convicted of illegal threats to his estranged wife and an FBI agent. Elonis was sentenced to 44 months in prison; however, he continued to appeal. Elonis disputed these charges to the Supreme Court, arguing he was expressing his First Amendment rights.
Elonis wrote several graphic threats to his wife on his Facebook page, but in his dispute, Elonis argued that he was an aspiring rap artist and his posts were merely self-written lyrics.
After he wrote a different post threatening an elementary school shooting, the FBI began to further investigate. After one FBI agent visited his home, Elonis wrote another graphically threatening Facebook post about the agent.
The Court held a unanimous decision in favor of Elonis because the law defining “true threats” combined with improper jury instructions could not be combined to convict him, Russomanno said, summarizing the Court’s defense.
The Court said they were unable to prove that Elonis had intent to enact his threats; however, victims of threats may suffer from psychological and physical health problems, such as nightmares, insomnia and anxiety, Russomanno said.
Those issuing threats often act in a state of perceived anonymity. They often don’t believe that what they say online will “stick to them,” Russomanno said.
To some, threats are a serious matter – especially online. The relationship between those who threaten and victims is intensified online because the actions seem “remote,” Russomanno said.
Though the case of Elonis was popularized, there are hundreds of threats made each day, Russomanno said, and he does not believe the regulation of making threats online are inconsistent with the First Amendment.
“The virtual world is in fact real, and the problems that stem from it are real, particularly for the victims,” Russomanno said. “Just ask them.”
Contact the reporter at Cecilya.Moreno@asu.edu.
