Elonis V. United States

Elonis v. United States

Justin C Orten

CJA/305

November 02, 2015

Professor Sperling

Elonis v. United States

My Interest in This Case

        I found this particular case interesting on the surface due to the apparent ties to the constitutional freedom of speech. However, upon delving further into the case I was surprised to find that freedom of speech did not become a factor. Anthony Elonis, aka. Tone Dougie, was convicted of four counts of violating the federal threats statute and sentenced to 44 months in jail after repeatedly posting threating lyrics to his Facebook page (Lithwick, 2015). The types of lyrics posted threatened, sometimes graphically, his wife, children, coworkers, and elementary schools. The test that the convicting jury used to convict Mr. Elonis was determining whether a casual observer would perceive the lyrics as threatening (Lithwick, 2015). Mr. Elonis argued during appeal that the lyrics were therapeutic and cited Eminem as an example of similar artistic use of graphic and violent lyrics (Lithwick, 2015). Thus, when the case reached the Supreme Court the question was not one of freedom of speech, but instead, a question of whether these lyrics would be able to be considered legitimate threats or if they were in fact therapeutic art.

Sources, Purposes, and Jurisdictions of This Case

        The sources, purposes, and jurisdictions of the Elonis v. United States case are to determine what communication is classified as a threat while protecting freedom of speech and protecting the public from threating and fear inducing messages. The case was founded and prosecuted upon the federal threats statute. This statute states “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (18 U.S.C. § 875 c)” In an interview concerning the Supreme Court’s ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “Federal criminal liability does not turn solely on the results of an act without considering the defendant’s mental state.” Thus the statement made by this ruling was that it is not enough that a reasonable observer would feel threatened, the mindset of the individual making the statements is also important.

Accomplice and Criminal Liability

        Accomplice liability did not factor in to this case. Mr. Elonis was not aided or encouraged in any way by any other party, therefore all liability fell onto Mr. Elonis (LeMance, 2015). In order for the court to prove that Mr. Elonis was criminally libel they must first prove that Mr. Elonis committed the crime and that Mr. Elonis did so with the proper criminal mindset (LeMance, 2015). Ultimately this is why the Supreme Court would overturn the conviction of Mr. Elonis. The criminal mindset could not be proven as Mr. Elonis contested that these lyrics were therapeutic art and each lyric on his Facebook account was tagged as therapeutic (Lithwick, 2015).