There's this guy, Anthony Elonis, who is a certified, convicted dick. He repeatedly posted all kinds of obnoxious and very detailed words on his Facebook page about his ex-wife and how he wanted to do terrible things to her, like killing her dead, which, as you might imagine, caused her to feel a tad bit alarmed for her safety, as one might when her ex is telling the internet he wants to harm her very much -- and how!
This isn't much of a consolation prize, but I hope this guy had to spend out his ass to pay his lawyers. As in, now broke and unable to afford an internet connection.
I don't know what he does for a living, but I can't imagine he would be a hot commodity in the job market, especially since he threatens co-workers along with his ex.
*I haven't explicitly seen the details of this case* but I understand he wasn't writing this stuff to the subjects themselves, he was writing it not unlike a diary or journal. It wasn't transmitted to them, it doesn't include their names but, of course, he's a dick and may or may not have made sure his ex would be able to see the posts.
I'm a big fan of the 1st amendment and in that regard I find it difficult to accept that the stories, poems, drawings etc. that we make for ourselves - even if they end up being distributed- should legally count as threats to those that might even reasonably perceive them as such.
I know it's sort of playing games with the legal definition but if you were Stephen King's ex, couldn't every book he writes feel like a threat to you?
Yeah, but then there's any actually transmitted, direct threat and those people need to go to jail.
Well, first let me say I would think the ex could get a restraining order and even move to have his weapons confiscated based on the threats at hand. But as far as saying he committed a crime, whether he writes it, draws it, rhymes it, makes a 3D sculpture out of it, are his thoughts really criminal if he doesn't directly deliver the threat? What if he kept even worse thoughts to himself? Should we subpoena his brain to make sure he's thinking only good thoughts?
Fistfucking is okay; I'm less sure about skullfucking.
The ghost of Chesty Puller has spoken to me, and I have communed with the spirit of Smedley Darlington Butler, and they both told me to crack this dumb motherfuckers’ skull, right after I rip off his stupid fucking baseball cap and fistfuck him with it*****....*****This one’s okay too, because “hyperbole.”
People ridiculed college professors, claiming they lived in an ivory tower. Sometime, I think the SCOTUS lives on Mars, by themselves, with nothing but legal tomes for entertainment and enlightenment. They really need to filter their decisions through the real world for a change. Other recent examples are corporations are people, the Voting Rights Act is outdated, and that unlimited, anonymous money will not taint politics.
Beat me to it
Great! And when I post a Faceboop diatribe about murdering some robed people, in great detail, that's going to be A-OK?
Something tells me maybe being this kind of dick might get different treatment than this other kind of dick.
So, my claim for EQUAL PROTECTION (FOR THREATENING DICKS) should be on solid legal ground! THANKS SCOTUS
Yeah, they blew it at the trial level.
Richard Rehnquist?
This isn't much of a consolation prize, but I hope this guy had to spend out his ass to pay his lawyers. As in, now broke and unable to afford an internet connection.
I don't know what he does for a living, but I can't imagine he would be a hot commodity in the job market, especially since he threatens co-workers along with his ex.
Does GoFundMe have any assassin-hiring policies?
They're easy to find too. Most of them have signs outside advertising 'Happy Hour'
There are so many good things about Social Media that outweigh this one bad thing, like being able to say "I'm at this restaurant eating THIS"
"Skullfuck" is still permitted under any interpretation.
*I haven't explicitly seen the details of this case* but I understand he wasn't writing this stuff to the subjects themselves, he was writing it not unlike a diary or journal. It wasn't transmitted to them, it doesn't include their names but, of course, he's a dick and may or may not have made sure his ex would be able to see the posts.
I'm a big fan of the 1st amendment and in that regard I find it difficult to accept that the stories, poems, drawings etc. that we make for ourselves - even if they end up being distributed- should legally count as threats to those that might even reasonably perceive them as such.
I know it's sort of playing games with the legal definition but if you were Stephen King's ex, couldn't every book he writes feel like a threat to you?
Yeah, but then there's any actually transmitted, direct threat and those people need to go to jail.
Wouldn't his past history of abuse and violence factor in at all?
Well, first let me say I would think the ex could get a restraining order and even move to have his weapons confiscated based on the threats at hand. But as far as saying he committed a crime, whether he writes it, draws it, rhymes it, makes a 3D sculpture out of it, are his thoughts really criminal if he doesn't directly deliver the threat? What if he kept even worse thoughts to himself? Should we subpoena his brain to make sure he's thinking only good thoughts?
Fistfucking is okay; I'm less sure about skullfucking.
The ghost of Chesty Puller has spoken to me, and I have communed with the spirit of Smedley Darlington Butler, and they both told me to crack this dumb motherfuckers’ skull, right after I rip off his stupid fucking baseball cap and fistfuck him with it*****....*****This one’s okay too, because “hyperbole.”
Paraphrased from The Drew Carey Show: You hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called EVERYONE. We meet at the bar after work.
Being able to see my nephew grow up from the opposite side of the country? ;-)
People ridiculed college professors, claiming they lived in an ivory tower. Sometime, I think the SCOTUS lives on Mars, by themselves, with nothing but legal tomes for entertainment and enlightenment. They really need to filter their decisions through the real world for a change. Other recent examples are corporations are people, the Voting Rights Act is outdated, and that unlimited, anonymous money will not taint politics.