Read the following article:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141130/us--supreme_court-facebook_threats-54ede78cfd.html
Answer the following questions that relate to the article:
1. In what city did the original threat take place?
2. How is this story related to the First Ammendment?
3. Where did Anthony Elonis work before he was fired?
4. How does the Supreme Court define "true threats"? Do you agree with this definition of a threat? How far should someone be able to go before what they're saying is no longer considered free speech?
5. Is there any credence to the argument that at least Elonis only said these things online instead of acting on them? Should people be allowed to vent and say whatever they want if it means that they won't act on their intentions?
6. Can celebrities like Eminem be held at all responsible for Elonis' act? What is the difference between a celebrity saying whatever he/she wants and Elonis saying whatever he wants?
Lizzie Walker
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, PA
2. Some are claiming that he should br protected under the First Amendment which includes freedom of speech.
3. He worked at an amusement park.
4. They say that true threats depend on how the objective person interprets them. They also say that they are not protected under the First Amendment. I feel that the definition of a “true threat” depends on who is giving the answer; everyone will have someone different and interpret a threat a different way. Once someone has implied any kind of threat to a specific person, I think the protecting under the First Amendment should not be available.
5. I don’t think that what Elonis said is justified simply because he didn’t act on his words. People should not be able to vent and say whatever they want because how is one supposed to know whether or not they will act upon their words.
6. Celebrities can be responsible for this because they make it look like saying these types of things is okay and that anyone can get away with it. They make it seem like imposing these threats is cool and makes that specific person more powerful. There is no difference; celebrities can just get away with things that average people cannot.
Carrie-Grace Gardino
ReplyDelete1. The original threats took place in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2. This story is related to the first amendment because the case probes the limits of free speech under the first amendment. It also questions whether threats made on the internet should be protected under the first amendment.
3. Anthony Elonis worked at an amusement park before he was fired.
4. The Supreme Court defines true threats as a threat that is made and puts another person in danger is not protected under the first amendment. I agree with this statement because if another person is put in danger from a threat whether it be in person or on the internet, they should be punished. I also think that a person post or says certain things at their own risk, which means that if it is found offensive or puts someone in danger, the Supreme Court has the right to take action and punish the person that said it.
5. I don’t think anyone can take the risk of believing that Elonis won’t act on these feelings/sayings. I think that people should be able to vent their feelings and say whatever they want to say as long as it does not put someone or something else in danger. I also think that there are better ways of venting ones feelings or opinions that does not involve putting themselves in danger. Lastly, I believe that if one decides to vent or express their feelings, they post/say at their own risk, knowing that if it is found offensive or dangerous, they could be punished.
6. I do not think that Eminem can be held responsible for this because this was not his intention when he wrote and published the song lyrics. I also do not think there is a difference between celebrities and other people saying what they believe because we should all follow the same rules. I believe that if a celebrity post/says/writes something that is found offensive then they should be punished as well. I think that anyone who chooses to say/write/post what they believe or feel run the risk of their comments being found offensive or dangerous and could possibly be punished.
Emylee Tull
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2. The guy is justifying his actions/posts by Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment.
3. He worked at an amusement park.
4. True threats are those with the intent to hurt someone and they are not protected under the First Amendment. I agree with this. I firmly believe in the freedom of speech and being able to discuss thoughts and feelings; however, when a person feels their life is threatened by comments made and live in fear for their life, then I don't think that the First Amendment should protect those statements that are considered life threatening to others.
5. Not really. I think that there are many ways to vent and take out anger and frustration without posting things on social media. Whether they act upon their threats or not, if the statement posted is life threatening to another, then it's not okay. People are of course allowed to write down their personal thoughts in a diary or journal, but when the anger is posted on social media for others to see, then it becomes a threat.
6. I don't necessarily believe that a song artist should be responsible for another person's actions, because they didn't force that person to post threatening comments. I do think that if someone who felt personally victimized by the author because of a personal relationship andfelt that their life was in danger because of song lyrics written by an artist, then they should be treated the same because everyone, including celebrities, should be treated equally.
1. Washington D.C.
ReplyDelete2. He is pleading that he was only employing his freedom of speech and was not threatening anyone.
3. An amusement park
4. A threat is when the person being targeted feels unsafe. yes and anything that directly relates to a persons well being is threatening.
5. It is preferable that he vents instead of actually performing these acts but no, publicly stating that you're going to inflict damage to another human being is not allowable for Internet media sites.
6. No not at all. In this exact case the argument can be made that Eminem has specifically stated in his music that there is no intent of ever literally hurting Kim, his ex-wife, and being a musician and an artist I do believe that it gives him, and others like him, leverage to express themselves in their music.
Caitlin Lavender
ReplyDelete1.Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2.Because not being able to post something on the internet is a violation of the first amendment.
3. an amusement park.
4.The Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. YES.
5.Posting these kind of words online is just as bad as saying them because once you post them or say them out loud its already out there for the world to see and hear and there is no way to take back the words people say, even if it was a mistake.
6. Celebraties are people too, but just because they have written a song that highly offends a person dose not give them the right to make more of those some types of songs and offend even more people. Sure it violates the first amendment but, words can offend and even hurt people that is way worse than taking away someone's right to say whatever they want to say.
Caitlin Lavender
ReplyDelete1.Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2.Because not being able to post something on the internet is a violation of the first amendment.
3. an amusement park.
4.The Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. YES.
5.Posting these kind of words online is just as bad as saying them because once you post them or say them out loud its already out there for the world to see and hear and there is no way to take back the words people say, even if it was a mistake.
6. Celebraties are people too, but just because they have written a song that highly offends a person dose not give them the right to make more of those some types of songs and offend even more people. Sure it violates the first amendment but, words can offend and even hurt people that is way worse than taking away someone's right to say whatever they want to say.
Will Larsen
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2. Whether his threat should be protected by the first amendment of freedom of speech
3. amusement park
4. depends on how an objective person perceives the message, yes, when they are talking about killing someone
5. no, no
6. yes, in my opinion nothing
Kali Sturgis
ReplyDelete1. The original threat took place in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2. The story is related to the First Amendment because the government is trying to figure out the limits of freedom of speech on the internet.
3. Anthony Elonis worked at an amusement park.
4. The Supreme Court defines "true threats" as how the objective perceives the message. Yes, I do agree on this definition. Personally, I understand that the internet can be a form of an emotional outlet but as many have said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
5. Technically, since he did not pursue his threats, he posed no harm, but, as the law says it depends on how the subject perceives the threat. I find that the internet can be a helpful venting location but people should have common sense enough to think that what they might say online could be perceived differently by others, especially if the other person doesn't know them in real life. Of course, people could go under an anonymous alias, but, all in all, saying rude or threatening remarks to others can be emotionally upsetting to the subject and other readers.
6. Celebrities can be held responsible for acts such as Elonis', but it mainly is how the author of the text puts the crude thoughts into statements. While some people can state rude sayings in a metaphorical sense, as a reader myself the remarks Elonis stated did come off as unsettling. In reality, there is no difference between what a celebrity and a normal person says because all things considered saying something ignorant is still saying something ignorant, no matter how much notoriety one has.
1. In what city did the original threat take place?Bethlehem, Pennsylvnia
ReplyDelete2. How is this story related to the First Ammendment? The story deals with whether a person's right to free speech should be protected despite making others feel as if they are at risk.
3. Where did Anthony Elonis work before he was fired? An amusement park.
4. How does the Supreme Court define "true threats"? Do you agree with this definition of a threat? How far should someone be able to go before what they're saying is no longer considered free speech? A true threat is a statement that a reasonable person would interpret as an intent to harm. I agree with this definition. What people say shouldn't be covered by the first amendment if it makes a stable person feel unsafe.-Lizzy L.
5. Is there any credence to the argument that at least Elonis only said these things online instead of acting on them? Should people be allowed to vent and say whatever they want if it means that they won't act on their intentions?
6. Can celebrities like Eminem be held at all responsible for Elonis' act? What is the difference between a celebrity saying whatever he/she wants and Elonis saying whatever he wants?
Ashby Shelley
ReplyDelete1. The original threat took place in Washington.
2. The right to freedom of speech.
3. He worked at an amusement park.
4. How an objective person perceives the message, yes I agree with this. And if it uses illegal content or violates someone, I think it should be stopped right then.
5. None at all. The fact that he even wrote these things is obscurd.. If you need to vent, write it on a paper, then throw it away.
6. Yes. If Eminem can say those things, why cant he? that's probably what he was thinking. But it is not right. Although, Eminem is an artist and that's what he does, Elonis is a husband, everyday worker. He was never in the right to say those things.
1. The original threat came from Bethlehem, Pennysylvania.
ReplyDelete2. This stories challenges the freedom of speech part of the first amendment.
3. Elonis worked at an amusement park.
4. The Supreme Court definition of a true threat is based off of how the objective person takes the comment. I agree with this because people can joke around using profanity and other types of harsh language. One should no longer be protected under the first amendment if the objective feels threatened by the person targeting them.
5. Yes, because some people are just naturally evil and will not do good. It is better for them to show their feelings on a website than to actually go and commit a crime.
6. There is no difference in the two. Both are giving statements that are radical, but that is how they keep themselves from being criminals.
Mi'Asia Barclay
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2. Freedom of speech
3. An amusement park
4. When the person in their right mind feels threatened, yes, the person making a "kidding joke" shouldn't go half as far as Elonis. they shouldn't joke about killing anyone.
5. He say the things online because he pictures the things in his head but if anyone need to vent and if they know its going to be taken the wrong way then maybe they should write in a diary instead.
6. Yes they could be held accountable for their violent influence. A celebrity put their threats in music but people really never listen to the lyrics honestly they just listen to the beat but they when they d listen to the lyrics they rarely understand what they are listening to and don't let the lyrics sink in. Regular people could not do that because some people take things the wrong way.
Tempie Ennis
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2. It relates because they are trying to figure out if it is part of the first amendment.
3. Amusement park
4. It depends on how the objective person perceives the message. Yes. To the point that what the person is saying is harmful to another person or cruel.
5. The law says it depends on how the subject perceives the threat. No, because they will hide the truth.
6. Yes, because they are humans too and Eminem can pursue just has much threat as Elonis' can. Eminem will have more people on is side, like his fans, taking up for him not matter what he does.
5.
Cassie House
ReplyDelete1. The threat took place in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2. It's related to the First Amendment because the Supreme Court has to rule if a Facebook post is protected under it.
3. He worked at an amusement park.
4. They define true threats as if it makes a reasonable person feel threatened. No, I don't agree. If it is a threat it should not be considered free speech.
5. Yes because even though it is bad he said it, at least he did not actually do it. I believe people should be able to, but if it's something public like that, it should be investigated to be sure the person will not actually cause harm to anything or anybody.
6. No. I don't think there is a difference at all. Just because Eminem is a celebrity and Elonis is not does not mean that one has more rights than the other. Everyone has equal rights to freedom of speech so people should be able to say what they want.
Kalee Jones
ReplyDelete1.Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2. It probes the freedom of speech
3. Wildwater Kingdom, an amusement park
4.To harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment .yes i do agree.
5. He said when he gets mad he just goes and vents on Facebook.No i think people should deal with the consequences. Plus its annoying to read about your problems.
6. No celebrities shouldn't. This man is grown. He should have some common since and stop being stupid. The difference is that they don't talk about blowing up schools. This man isn't three he shouldn't be influenced by other men.
Brittany Davidson 11/4/14
ReplyDelete1) It happens in Washington, D.C.
2) It relates to the 1st amendment because of free speech.
3) At an amusement park.
4) The Supreme Court says a true threat is if a person really feels threaten by the lyrics he put up. I personally don't think that is a true threat. If they are talking about shooting up the world then that is not free of speech that it is just being literally crazy.
5) No, because everyone recites lyrics from a song. No, because if they have intentions of doing what they said they will do, then no they shouldn't vent.
6) No, because Eminem is rapping about experiences from their past. I don't think there is a difference unless people have cruel meaning behind their actions.
Cameron Stone
ReplyDeleteBethlehem, Pennsylvania
Elonis claims he is protected by the right to free speech but the gov't claims the first amendment does not protect people making threats.
At an amusement park.
whether or not the words make a reasonable person feel threatened. I agree if someone feels scared for their life then something should be done.
people should be able to control themselves and not threaten peoples lives anywhere or anytime.
The celebrities are not speaking to a specific person so no one feels threatened and you cant blame a celebrity for someone else's actions.
Karen Otts
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2. Freedom of speech
3. At an amusement park
4. A true threat is when a person feels threatened by someone’s words. I completely agree if you say something threatening to someone or about them then it shouldn’t be protect by the first amendment. You can talk bad about somebody all you want to but you don’t need to say things about how you would like to see them dead laying in their own pile of blood. You can say whatever you want but you don’t need to take it as far as listing out the way you want to kill them.
5. Its better that he said it online instead of acting them out but it still doesn’t make what he said right and his wife has every right to be scared because how does she or anybody else know that he won’t act out upon what he has posted. People should be allowed to vent about whatever they want but when it comes to harming another person they shouldn’t post it for the world to see then get mad because somebody called them out on it. It’s your own fault that you posted it online and you deserve to suffer the consequences of being accused of wanting to murder somebody even if that was what your intentions were or not.
6. No they should not be held responsible. They aren’t the ones who are making him say it he is the one who had the power to get on Facebook and post those statements. There isn’t really a difference but a celebrity is singing these songs so people can relate the people who are writing these songs are for the people who listen to the music and enjoy it, what he posted was to one specific person his wife and it made her scared. Music is music and doesn't show any threat to anyone. But making a Facebook comment about your wife shows her threat.
1. In what city did the original threat take place?
ReplyDeleteWashington
2. How is this story related to the First Ammendment?
Freedom of speech
3. Where did Anthony Elonis work before he was fired?
Amusement Park
4. How does the Supreme Court define "true threats"? Do you agree with this definition of a threat? How far should someone be able to go before what they're saying is no longer considered free speech?
Supreme court defines true threat as "political hyperbole" and "unpleasantly sharp attacks."
Maybe Elonis did not mean any harm he is just simply weird and wants to do what he wants whether one like it or not.
5. Is there any credence to the argument that at least Elonis only said these things online instead of acting on them? Should people be allowed to vent and say whatever they want if it means that they won't act on their intentions?
He only said those things but maybe he did not mean it. Maybe he wanted some attention or maybe he wanted someone to see what he was saying just to accuse him. If he was smart enough, Elonis would not have put things on Facebook if he knew he was going to do something cruel. People can say whatever they want to say but that still doesn't mean he will act on what he said.
6. Can celebrities like Eminem be held at all responsible for Elonis' act? What is the difference between a celebrity saying whatever he/she wants and Elonis saying whatever he wants?
He could, maybe Elonis looks up to him and his lyrics. It would not be all on Eminem though. When a celebrity write lyrics, people often repeat them because he or she likes the song or beat. It does not simply mean they are going to actually do what they repeated and it also does not mean the celebrity does what he or she say in the song as well. Sometimes they need words to rhyme or to just make their song sound good. For Elonis, people will criticize what he say because they may not know him and he may be true to what he say because no one usually put their "attacks" online.
Drew Forrester
ReplyDelete1st period
1.) The original threat took place in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2.) This story has a court case that almost violates the right to free speech.
3.) Elonis used to work at an amusement park before he was fired.
4.) The Supreme court defined a "true threat" as any threat that makes one feel threatened, regardless of the one issuing the threat's malice. I don't agree with this definition because a person can get threatened by almost anything and the other person could get wrongly accused. Also, a person should only be limited to what they can say by the amount of times they issue a "threat;" it's an issue if it happens more than a few times.
5.) No, I think that people should be able to vent however they want as long as it's not a repeated threat or overly vulgar.
6.) Celebrities can't be held accountable for other people's actions. The only difference between celebrities speaking out and Elonis speaking out is the a celebrity will be heard by more people and, more than likely, people would accept a celebrities words more.
Adrianna Boyd
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2. It goes back to the first amendment because of the freedom of religion, expression, and speech.
3. Amusement park
4. The supreme court defines true threats as a form of communication that should be punished through law. I do not agree with their definition of true threat. Everyone should have the freedom to say whatever they want.
5. As long as he's not taking his words to actions and is just venting, it's fine. I believe things like that shouldn't be posted for the public and everyone to see. You'll then be characterized as a psycho. Words do hurt. He went to far by posting it so that everyone could see.
6. There is no difference. Everyone is human. The only difference between Eminem and Elonis is that Eminem has plenty of money. Everyone has the freedom of speech, but some people take it too far.
Jon Owens
ReplyDelete1. It takes place in Washington.
2. Elonis's lyrics were explicit and seemed to be threatening to a certain person but he claims they were just a "a crude and spontaneous form of expression that should not be considered threatening if he did not really mean it."
3. He worked at an amusement park.
4. They define it as whether words make a reasonable person feel threatened. I dont agree with it if its in a song he publishes. Rap is a form of poem set to music. Poems are used to express yourself. If he directed the comment to her then theres a problem.
5. Of course. He just wanted to get it off his chest. By all means say it but dont do it.
6. What? No.... what if he didnt even listen to Eminem? Theres no difference in celebs saying things and the common man saying something. We're all human. Im not saying any names but its not always the common loud mouth people who do wrong. You can be well known, extremely funny, have nice character, and loves "puddin' pops" and still commit certain crimes against women without saying a word on social media.
London Williamson
ReplyDelete1. The original threat took place in Bethelem, Pennsylvania.
2. Elonis claimed that his threats are protected according to the first amendment.
3. He worked at an amusement park.
4. A true threat is one that makes a person feel like their life is in danger, and I agree that this is a good definition of a threat. They should not be able to threaten to harm anyone. Freedom of speech should be the freedom to express your opinions and ideas as long as they are not threats and do not endanger anyone else.
5. No. Just because he hadn't acted on it does not mean he wouldn't have if given the chance. Death threats are still serious and they should be acted on. People should be allowed to vent their opinions, yes. However, they should not be able to threaten to kill anyone.
6. I honestly don't think anyone should be held at all responsible for someone else's act. You can't blame anyone else for your actions because no on forced you to do that. However, I do not believe that there is a difference between a celebrity saying whatever he/she wants and Elonis saying whatever he wants. If a celebrity makes a death threat to a specific person, and that person feels threatened, then the celebrity should get in trouble for that just like any regular person should as well.
Abigail Long
ReplyDelete1, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2.Because the first amendment protects freedom of speech
3. Amusement park
4.i dont think it should be considered a threat until someone feels threatened or unsafe
5.yes he was venting online, where people have the courage to say things they dont mean, but if he didnt intend to act on it he should have followed up apologizing for his behavior and making it clear that he didnt mean it.
6. yes they are responsible for doing it first and putting the thoughts in peoples heads. but people should also understand that they arent being serious when they say those things and be responsible for their own actions
Cole Turner 1st
ReplyDelete1.) Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2.) The First Amendment protects freedom of speech but, the suspect in this case has been convicted of his use of his speech and nothing else.
3.) Anthony Elnonis worked at an amusement park.
4.) The Supreme Court says that a "true threat" is when a reasonable person is frightened for their well being. I somewhat agree. I think people should be able to express themselves, however, if the person being "threatened" feels fear for their life, then I feel that should be considered a legitimate threat.
5.) I do agree that people should be able to vent and that sometimes writing it down just isn't enough, people want attention for what they're going through. However, what one says on social media should be sensible and one should understand that what they post can and probably will be taken out of context by a few individuals. But, as far as whether it is better to vent online and not act on intentions... What you say should not instill fear or anxiety in another human being. Human's have a right to three unalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit if happiness. You cannot say things that threaten those rights to people.
6.) No, celebrities don't create music with intentions to have ignorant people be inspired to post "lyrics" of similar ideas. As far as the difference goes, celebrities say what they want on a pedestal and they incorporate them into songs that we, honestly love. We assume most celebrities are competent enough not to act and don't literally mean what they say.
Jessica Lewis
ReplyDelete1. The original threat took place in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2. The First Amendment includes the freedom of speech.
3. Anthony Elonis worked at an amusement park.
4. "True threats" relies on other people, using how they view them as to rule if it's true or not. While they might be rather bias, it seems somewhat fair. Somewhat. Critical and/or controversial threats may no longer be considered free speech.
5. Other than Elonis admitting he would never act out such things, it doesn't keep people from believing he'll actually do them. There's such a thing as lying. People should not vent out on social media. Writing it on a piece of paper then burning it would be a lot better.
6. Celebrities are looked up to by vast amounts of people and are often viewed as role models. Keeping a clear sense of right and wrong in what they do may influence their fans and potentially other people to act right.
Amber C. Price
ReplyDelete1.The threat took place in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2. First Amendment says the people have the freedom of speech. This story relates to the first amendment by discussing whether or not that Elonis' lyrics violate the first amendment by using the first amendment to express a threat and what he wants to do in life without actually meaning it.
3. Anthony Elonis worked at an amusement park before he got fired.
4.Supreme Court defines "true threats" as a "political hyperbole" and "unpleasantly sharp attack" and is not protected under the First Amendment. I think a true threat is a sharp attack but depends on how the person meant it and does not attack on it than it is not really a threat. As long as no one actually gets hurt or injured than its not really attack even though it could be a threat without intentions and can hurt people emotionally.
5.The article does not really say they believe he would do it they are just trying to protect people incase and they believe that its wrong for him to say these things and get away with it. People should be able to vent as long as they do not hurt or injury someone by acting on their intentions.
6. Eminem should not be responsible for Elonis' acts because Eminem does not control him and did not make him in any way write them and post them. The only difference is that when a celebrity says the lyrics in a song everyone likes them and does not believe its a threat and just think of it as a song but if someone who is not famous says the lyrics its like he means it and people get scared and think it is a threat when really he could be just venting and making music with his feelings and not meaning any harm at all.
Sarah Snyder
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylviana
2. It is could be considered violating the first amendment which is freedom of speech, when he did put something on the internet and he is getting in trouble for it.
3. He worked at an amusment park.
4 Threats that are considered to harm someone. Yes I do, if someone is going to say something violently and threatening, and then post it on the internet, then that is their own fault in stupidity, and should be punished. If they are threatening someones life it should be not considerd freedom of speech anymore.
5.He still said threatning evidence that could be acted upon. It depends on what the person vents about whether it should be "allowed". For example If a person is mad about someone getting voted of their favorite show and they say a few ugly words, it is harmless. On the other hand if a person says that they are personally trying to hurt another indviual and put their life at risk, that is when someone, or the law, should be "allowed" to step in. They had the FREEDOM of putting it out there, so the police have the FREEDOM to hold that person accountable.
6. I do not think that a celebrity can be held accountable for someone elses actions. Though I do think they have a major influence on people to make them want to say and do things like this. For example there was a song about suicide a few years ago that a celebrity had sang, the numbers of sucide increased ridiculously that year. There is a difference in Eminem saying something about killing and Elonis saying the same thing: Eminem will get away with it.
Micaela Tierce 1st
ReplyDelete1.) The original threat was in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2.) It involves this man's freedom of speech and how it was taken from him when he used in a threatening way.
3.) Elonis worked at an amusement park.
4.) They define it as threat when objective people believe it be a threat, and the Supreme Court viewed that the first amendment is void when a " true threat" is brought forward.
5.) People view going online as entering another world that doesn't have any coincidences. Most of us are taught at a young age that words have serious weight, but sometimes people do take them out of proportions. If Elonis is so distressed about the events going on his life the best advice that could be given would be to seek guidance from a therapist. If he can not afford a therapist, since one of the problems he is dealing with involves employment, he should share these emotions with a trusting friend or possibly a pastor or priest. There are always other opinions then putting all your personal tragedies online.
6.) Elonis is his own person and should not be able to put blame on other people for his actions, whether a celebrity or not. Although Eminem knows better than to say inappropriate things in his songs, nobody stops him so he continues to do this. Eminem should be rebuked, since he is an American citizen just like Elonis but he can not be held responsible for his fans responses to his videos.
Harrison Armour
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2. Anthony Elonis posted something on facebook which some thing is protected by the first amendment that protects free speech.
3. An Amusement Park
4. A "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message. No, I do not agree with this. People should be allowed to say what they want as long as there is no physical evidence that they are actually planning to act upon such actions in regards to a threat.
5. To some extent, yes. He did not act on them, but yet it was unclear whether or not he was planning to act on them or not. Yes, people have a right to say whatever they want under normal circumstances. And yes, the government has the duty to act upon what people say with the purpose of keeping
peace and order. It can be hard to determine whether or not someone will act upon what they say. In the case of physical evidence something should be done, but in the case of no physical evidence there should be an analysis of the threat, then an action or inaction should follow.
6. No. The biggest difference whether or not they are clear about actually carrying out those actions. It all depends on the context of how and when one says it. If it's in a rap song, it probably should not be taken literally. If it's posted on Facebook, one has reason to worry.
Trent Ray
ReplyDelete1. The original threat took place in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2. The story relates to the first ammendment because the first ammendment protects free speech.
3. Elonis worked at an amusement park before he was fired.
4. According to the supreme court, whether or not something is a "true threat" is based on how an objective person sees it. I agree with this definition for the most part. I think if someone sane feels threatened by someone else's remarks and the remarks appear threatening to an objective viewer then the remarks should not be protected under freedom of speech.
5. I think it is definitely fair for people to vent online if they do not truly threaten people or direct it at other individuals maliciously. I think it would have been okay if Elonis would have said he was quoting an Eminem song and did not mean it personally.
6. I do not think Eminem should be held responsible, and the difference is that Eminem did not act out his lyrics and quite honestly, people expect these kind of lyrics from Eminem. He has done it so much that people realize he does not actually plan to kill his wife.
Riley Holmes
ReplyDelete1) Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2) It test how far the freedom of speech can go.
3) He worked at an amusement park.
4) As the way an objective person views them and they are not under the first amendment. Yes, if someone truly feels threatened then they should be able to get help. If they threaten to hurt someone in a way that the other person truly feels threatened then it needs to no longer be free speech.
5) No, once thoughts form in your mind you are more likely to act on them when only saying them is no longer enough. No because you will no longer be able to tell if this person is really going to not act on it.
6) Yes in part what you put in is what you will put out to the world. Celebrities are put up on a pedistul and they can do most things and get away with it because everyone loves them and normal people are treated like regular citizans unlike most celebrities.
Addie Melchior
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2. It puts Elonis' freedom of speech into question.
3. He worked at an amusement park.
4. "True threats" are objective to how the person takes the message. They say that a threat is something you say when you intend to harm someone and I agree with this definition. I think that obvious threats should not be considered free speech or if what the person is saying could potentially hurt people, it should not be considered free speech.
5. No, just because he didn't, doesn't mean he wouldn't. People should be able to vent but only if it is obviously not realistic and not going to happen.
6. Eminem could be partially responsible for writing songs with that language in them but they could not pin the whole act on him. Celebrities are able to get away with more than regular people and since he is a rapper, obviously he is going to put some inappropriate things in there. It is not Eminem's fault hat Elonis listened to it and took it the way that he did.
Angel Wynn
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2. His comment on facebook should be protected by the First Amendment due to the right of free speech.
3. An amusement park.
4. "True threats" are threats to harm a person that can not be protected under the First Amendment.Yes, I agree with this. They shouldn't be able to go that far when there are threats against someone which could put their life at risk.
5. Yes, there possibly could be. People should be allowed to vent, but threatening lives takes it a little too far.
6. No, celebrities can not. The difference is that celebrities are in a different class from average people. They get special privileges that nrmsl people do not.
Melody Ashcraft
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem. 2014.
2. It talks about whether this man has the right to post whatever he wants to on social media even if it is threatening
3. amusement park
4. a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message. I agree with this to an extent, I believe that a threat is a threat. If many people are saying it is, then it is.
5. No, it is a threat either way. I do not believe people should be allowed to "vent" their feelings online because we do not know if they will act on them or not.
6. I do not believe celebrities should be held responsible for other people's actions. I believe that if a celebrity makes a threat in a song or social media post, they should have the same punishment as any other person (like Elonis).
Morgan Fomera
ReplyDelete1.Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2.Freedom of Speech
3. amusement park
4.How objectively the comment is viewed. Yes I do because if the person doesnt see it as a big deal or needing to be handled then they have made that choice of not wanting it taken care of.
5. Yes, this is the same reason why people post certain things on instagram or twitter. In hopes of the person they are talking about will see it. And that even though it isnt directly sent to them they still know and maybe they will get the hint. It just so happens that this was a more extreme measure.
6.There is no difference. They should be treated the same. Celebrities should not be held accountable for what some one else decides to do. We all have our own mind.
1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
ReplyDelete2. It discusses the limits of our freedom of speech.
3. an amusement park
4. A "true threat" is an action that is perceived as threatening by a person in an objective position. I think a threat is anything that makes any person feel any type of fear. I'm not sure exactly where that line should be drawn, but it should definitely be before people are fearing for their lives.
5. I think this argument is stupid to be honest. That's like saying people should be allowed to run through an airport saying they have a bomb or run through a school saying they're going to shoot it up just "vent." There are many more effective, less potentially harmful ways to do this.
6. I don't think they should be held responsible for his decision because he is a grown man looking for a scapegoat, but I don't think that celebrities should be allowed to say whatever they want. There is no difference between the two.
Topazia Dubose
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennslyvania
2.People have freedom of speech
3. Amusememt park
4. If it makes a person feel unsafe. Yes. If the threats are continous.
5.No because it might have acted on it. Yes if it's not harmful to others.
6.No because it did not force him to write his lyrics on facebook. Elonis directed his threats at his wife & innocent children while in a depressed state.
Sky Kim
ReplyDelete1.Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2.The freedom of speech
3.amusement park
4.how objective the person receives the message. threats against someone should not be tolerable
5. If it is truly a threat then they should be punished for something like that
6.Eminem isnt responsible even if his songs are brutal and vulgar. Eminem makes a living off of what he does, unlike Elonis
Clay Martin
ReplyDelete1. Bethlem, Pennsylvania
2. freedom of speech
3. an amusement park
4. when a person in their right mind takes the comment offensively, yes I agree, and as far as they want until they conspire to commit a crime.
5. no and no they shouldn't say things where other people can see it and just write it in a diary or something.
6. because they are expressing themselves through music and that is their career so they need to say things in order to make money.
Solomon Bolden
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
2. Freedom of speech
3. An amusement park
4.True threats is until a person in their right mind feels threatened or in danger. No. because everyone's definition of danger is different. I think their should be no boundaries because whatever comes out of my mouth is my opinion.
5. Yes, because spoken words don't necessarily mean action. Yes, if the constitution says freedom of speech I expect full freedom of speech. If I can't have freedom of speech then take it out of the stupid constitution.
6. They should be held responsible, but we all know he isn't. Celebrity privilege is the different.
Solomon Bolden
My Luu
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem
2. This story relates to the First Amendment because the First Amendment is the freedom of speech which deals Elonis's act.
3. Amusement park
4. The Supreme Court defines "true thread" as words that make a reasonable person feel threatened. I do agree with the definition because as long as the person receiving the threads feel imitated, it's consider a true thread. It depends on what they put in the speech and the person receiving the speech as well.
5. There are no credence to this argument because we never know if Elonis is going to act this acts yet. According to what he said, the rap song wasn't suppose to be take seriously and that he's not going to do anything. I don't think people should be allowed to vent and say whatever they want because even though the First Amendment is freedom of speech, there should be a limit of how much they can say. If it's something like what Elonis's rap, I think that's a bit too much.
6. I believe that even celebrities should be held at all responsible because what different does it make and how is it fair that a regular person is being punished for this act and a celebrity is not.
Maya Turner
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2. Since the First Amendment allows freedom of speech then the court is trying to decide whether or not to give him that right or to charge him.
3. He worked at an amusement park.
4. It depends on how the objective person receives the message; I somewhat agree but I feel when someone is putting the other person's life in danger through ANY WORD, it is considered a threat.
5. Not really, it's just a blessing for himself that he didn't act on them. People can say whatever they want because that's free speech but if you're going to threaten to take someone else's life then that's not okay. Regardless if you act on it or not.
6. I don't think Eminem can be held responsible. & I believe because Eminem just raps about it, that's his job and people don't take his raps as seriously as they would a regular person.
Shakira Kennedy
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennslyvania
2.People have freedom of speech
3. Amusememt park
4. If it makes a person feel unsafe. Yes. If the threats are continous.
5.No because it might have acted on it. Yes if it's not harmful to others.
6. Celebrities have a freedom to say whatever they want without facing a penalty for it. Most celebrities don't care what they say, they just say it because they feel they can do that anytime
Ken G
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania,
2. Freedom of Speech
3. Amusement park
4. If someone feels threatened. And yes because people's security and feeling safe is apart of the nation we live in.
5. No and no because while he has a right to freedom of speech. When it affects other people it is no longer just about them.
6. Yes because they have a much larger influence over people. They should be treated the same because even though there is a different level of influence the law should look at everyone the same.
Batrina Reid
ReplyDelete1. The original threat took place in Bethlehem, Pennslyvania.
2. The story is related to the first amendment because it allows the people to have freedom of speech.
3. Elonis worked at an amusement park before being fired.
4. True threats are defined as true threats of it makes a person feel unsafe. If the threats are constant then it is no longer free speech.
5. No but also yes because online you never know when the person will act out. People should be allowed to vent, but how that act is a different story.
6. Yes, he is not a special person so he can .
Batrina Reid
ReplyDelete1. The original threat took place in Bethlehem, Pennslyvania.
2. The story is related to the first amendment because it allows the people to have freedom of speech.
3. Elonis worked at an amusement park before being fired.
4. True threats are defined as true threats of it makes a person feel unsafe. If the threats are constant then it is no longer free speech.
5. No but also yes because online you never know when the person will act out. People should be allowed to vent, but how that act is a different story.
6. Yes, he is not a special person so he can .
Jaida Minor
ReplyDelete1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
2. Elonis wrote on Facebook a free writing rap and the First Amendment is the freedom of speech
3. An amusement park
4. Depends on how an objective person perceives the message. I agree with this but at other times , somethings should be done , not just putting them behind bars but removing them off of that sight.
5. It's great that Elonis didn't take this further but you shouldn't be able to just express your harsh feelings like that because people today are committing suicide from verbal comments
6. Eminem can be blamed because he shouldn't be saying things like that but it is the persons choice whether they should listen to them or not so it can be that persons fault. A celebrity can be taken a whole different way because they happen to be known around the world..
1. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
ReplyDelete2. The first amendment is in support every individual's freedom of speech and Mr. Elonis says it was just a joke.
3. He worked an Amusement Park
4. How an objective person perceives the messages. Yes I do. If there is a series of comments, then its too far.
5. Yes. It depends. But people will do it anyway, so it don't matter. If they start to arrest everyone who posts something a little offensive, half of social media would be locked up.
6. No those celebrities can not be held responsible. They speak their mind through music instead of acting on them. There is no difference but in music it is more isolated to a specific fan base or type of person.