I have a sense about when is the proper time to post:
"Threat case tests free speech limits in social media" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post November 30, 2014
WASHINGTON — About a week after Tara Elonis persuaded a judge to issue a protective order against her estranged husband, Anthony, her soon-to-be ex had this to say:
‘‘Fold up your PFA [protection-from-abuse order] and put it in your pocket.
“Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?’’
Anthony Elonis didn’t deliver the message in person, by phone, or in a note. He posted it on his Facebook page, for all to see, in a prose style reminiscent of the violent, misogynistic lyrics of rap artists he admires.
Did he swear like me?
Other than that, nothing in common.
In its first examination of the limits of free speech on social media, the Supreme Court on Monday will consider whether, as a jury concluded, the postings by Elonis constituted a ‘‘true threat’’ to his wife and others.
The problem is, that is -- or should be -- an inviolate right.
Btw, you are only for free speech you oppose, and as I have stated I'm for all the propaganda and everything else. I have faith that readers will find the truth as I have.
The issue is whether Elonis should be prosecuted for what he says was simply blowing off steam — ‘‘therapeutic efforts to address traumatic events,’’ as his brief to the court says — because what matters is not his intent but whether any reasonable person targeted in the rants would regard them as menacing warnings.
So this whole thing has been a trap?
Parties on both sides of the case are asking the court to consider the specific qualities of social media.
In this rapidly evolving realm of communication, only the occasional emoticon may signal whether a writer is engaging in satire or black humor, exercising poetic license, or delivering the kind of grim warnings that have presaged school shootings and other acts of mass violence.
I didn't see any to use on my prehistoric site; however, I oppose and discourage violence at all times. I won't stand in the way of the mob to defend war criminals or bank looters, though.
Elonis, who has already served prison time for his Facebook posts, and some of his supporters say the court must look beyond incendiary content to discern the writer’s intent.
That is scary.
‘‘Internet users may give vent to emotions on which they have no intention of acting, memorializing expressions of momentary anger or exasperation that once were communicated face-to-face among friends and dissipated harmlessly,’’ said a brief filed on behalf of Elonis by the Student Press Law Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the writers’ organization PEN.
As you have seen here, my anger has dissipated so much from when I started it's minimal. Nothing but sad resignation here.
Domestic violence experts, on the other hand, say social media has become a powerful tool for dispensing threats.
The more my agenda-pu$her cites it -- with certain forums most prominent -- I distrust it.
Victims of domestic abuse, according to a brief filed by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, ‘‘have experienced real-life terror caused by increasingly graphic and public posts to Facebook and other social media sites — terror that is exacerbated precisely because abusers now harness the power of technology, enabling them to reach their victims’ everyday lives at the click of a mouse or the touch of a screen.”
You don't have to come here, and I never comment anywhere.
The case carries wide First Amendment implications for free speech rights and artistic expression.
I knew it!
Briefs laden with the f-word and vulgar references to the female anatomy attempt to provide a crash course on Eminem and Wu-Tang Clan for the high court’s justices, whose tastes lean more toward Wagner, and illuminate what some scholars say are the misunderstood storytelling attributes of rap.
I try very hard to **** it up, and have a running apology to the side. Sorry again.
It is a thoroughly modern case for justices who even eschew e-mail communications with one another but are increasingly called upon to decide issues centered on evolving technology. Last term alone, they decided cases involving cellphone privacy, software patents, and cloud-based Internet streaming video.
No dummies they! They understand the spying by the NSA!
A number of people watched the Facebook newsfeed by Elonis with growing alarm during a two-month period in 2010. His wife had left with their two children, and Elonis, then 27 and working at Dorney Park and Wildwater Kingdom amusement park in Allentown, Pa., grew increasingly despondent and angry.
He was fired after co-workers interpreted one of his Facebook postings as a threat to them. He responded: ‘‘Someone once told me that I was a firecracker. Nah, I’m a nuclear bomb and Dorney Park just [expletive] with the timer.’’
I never plane on facing, and will stop this if I must.
His lawyer in the Supreme Court case, Washington lawyer John Elwood, noted for the court that the posting was ‘‘followed by an emoticon of a face with its tongue sticking out to indicate ‘jest.’ ”
In other postings, Elonis pondered making a name for himself by shooting up an elementary school and noted there many nearby to choose from — ‘‘hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.’’
Now this guy absolutely stinks of psyop!
Elwood’s brief noted that Elonis sprinkled the postings with references to his ‘‘art’’ and First Amendment rights.
To discredit the rest of us, right?
--more--"
"Supreme Court considers Facebook threats case" by Sam Hananel, Associated Press December 02, 2014
WASHINGTON — From the violent lyrics of rap music to the crude comments of teenagers in video-game chat rooms, the Supreme Court struggled Monday over where to draw the line between free speech and illegal threats in the digital age.
The justices considered the case of a Pennsylvania man convicted of posting violent threats on Facebook — in the form of rap lyrics — about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a school, and slitting the throat of an FBI agent.
My goodness, now he's an ISIS terrorist!
Lawyers for Anthony Elonis say he didn’t mean to threaten anyone. They contend his posts under the pseudonym ‘‘Tone Dougie’’ were simply a way for him to vent his frustration over splitting up with his wife.
The government argues the proper test is not what Elonis intended, but whether his words would make a reasonable person feel threatened. That’s the standard a jury used in convicting him under a federal law barring threats of violence.
Some justices seemed concerned that the government’s position is too broad and risks sweeping in language protected by the First Amendment. But there seemed to be little agreement over what standard to use.
‘‘How does one prove what’s in somebody else’s mind?’’ asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Or their heart, for that matter?
************
Elonis attorney John Elwood said the speaker’s intent could be determined by searching computer records, cellphone records, and other evidence of context.
NSA has it all.
He said many speakers being prosecuted ‘‘are teenagers who are essentially shooting off their mouths and making sort of ill-timed, sarcastic comments, which wind up getting them thrown in jail.’’
Or "old terrorists rednecks," right?
As an example, he cited a teenager prosecuted for making sarcastic comments in a video-game chat room about shooting up a kindergarten after another teen called him crazy.
Chief Justice John Roberts suggested the government’s standard simply would be whether a reasonable person familiar with teenagers in video-game chat rooms would view it as a threat. But Elwood said everyone has a different view of context and the better standard is looking at what the speaker intended.
Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether Elonis’s comments about causing physical harm in the context of a marital dispute deserve First Amendment protection. He said the government’s standard ‘‘doesn’t eliminate a whole lot of speech at all.’’
The Supreme Court has said ‘‘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.’’
Then I'm safe?
Justice Elena Kagan asked whether there should be a ‘‘buffer zone’’ under the First Amendment ‘‘to ensure that even stuff that is wrongful maybe is permitted because we don’t want to chill innocent behavior.’’
Roberts wondered about rap stars like Eminem, who has used graphic language about killing his ex-wife that may be misinterpreted as a threat.
‘‘You know, ‘Da-da make a nice bed for mommy at the bottom of the lake,’ ’’ Roberts said, quoting an Eminem song.
Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben, representing the government, said a jury can look at the context in which comments are made. Eminem’s lyrics are sung at a concert where people go to be entertained, he said.
--more--"
Say goodbye to your right to free speech.
Time to be reborn:
Ex-UPS driver’s pregnancy bias claim at high court
High court scrutinizes UPS pregnancy policy
FDA updating drug risk warnings to pregnant women
Supreme Court backs ruling blocking Ariz. abortion law
Gay marriage cases teed up for justices’ action
FDA panel wary of lifting ban on gay blood donors
“This is a major victory for gay civil rights,” forget about the safety of the blood supply.
Just courting your health.
"Supreme Court rejects BP appeal of spill settlement" by Janet McConnaughey, Associated Press December 09, 2014
NEW ORLEANS — The Supreme Court is leaving in place BP’s multibillion-dollar settlement with lawyers for businesses and residents over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The justices did not comment Monday in rejecting the London-based oil giant’s arguments that lower courts misinterpreted settlement terms and put BP on the hook to pay inflated and bogus claims by businesses.
The court’s decision makes the economic and property damage settlement final, starting a six-month deadline for filing claims, said plaintiffs’ attorney Joe Rice of Mount Pleasant, S.C.
BP PLC wanted the court to consider whether people and businesses seeking payments under the settlement included some who haven’t actually suffered any injury related to the spill.
A district court and an appeals court ruled that, under the settlement BP agreed to, businesses do not have to prove they were directly harmed by the spill to collect money — only that they made less money in the three to eight months after the spill than in a comparable pre-spill period.
BP’s Macondo well blew up on April 20, 2010, killing 11 men. An estimated 103 million to 176 million gallons of oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico before the mile-deep well was capped July 15, 2010. Lawyers for BP and the government agree that 34 million gallons was captured before it could pollute coastal marshes and fishing grounds.
‘‘Today’s ruling is a huge victory for the Gulf, and should finally put to rest BP’s two-year attack on its own settlement,’’ lead plaintiffs’ attorneys Stephen J. Herman and James P. Roy said in an e-mailed statement.
The settlement doesn’t have a cap, but BP initially estimated that it would pay roughly $7.8 billion to resolve the claims. The company said it can no longer give a reliable estimate for total cost. The company, which made separate settlements for medical claims and seafood-related business claims, has paid more than $13 billion in claims by individuals, businesses, and government entities and another $14 billion-plus on response and cleanup, according to its oil spill website.
BP remains concerned ‘‘that the program has made awards to claimants that suffered no injury from the spill — and that the lawyers for these claimants have unjustly profited as a result,’’ BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an e-mailed statement.
--more--"
"Supreme Court says Amazon need not pay for security checks" by Adam Liptak, New York Times December 10, 2014
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday that workers at Amazon warehouses need not be paid for the time they wait to go through a security screening at the end of the day. The workers say the process, meant to prevent theft, can take as long as 25 minutes.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the screenings were not “integral and indispensable” to the workers’ jobs, which involved retrieving products from warehouse shelves and packaging them for delivery to Amazon’s customers.
The decision was a big loss for workers challenging the security checks, which are common among retailers.
According to a brief filed by the temporary employment agency that hires workers for the Amazon warehouse in Las Vegas, there have been 13 class-action suits against Amazon and other companies involving more than 400,000 plaintiffs seeking hundreds of millions of dollars.
The case turned on the meaning of a 1947 law, the Portal-to-Portal Act, which says that companies need not pay for “preliminary” or “postliminary” activities, meaning ones that take place before and after the workday proper.
The Supreme Court interpreted the law in 1956 in Steiner v. Mitchell to require pay only for tasks that are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed.”
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, had allowed the Las Vegas case to proceed, saying the screenings were for the company’s benefit and were a necessary part of the workers’ jobs. That was enough, the appeals court said, to make the screenings “integral and indispensable.”
Thomas disagreed, saying the appeals court had “erred by focusing on whether an employer had required a particular activity.”
The right test, he said, was whether the activity “is tied to the productive work that the employee is employed to perform.”
--more--"
It's a corporate court, and is anyone really surprised.
Also see:
Amazon’s new robot army is ready to ship for holidays
That will solve the theft problem; thankfully, the jobs market is improving, right?
Amazon: Let us test drones
It's just a model, right?
Court: EPA cannot regulate lead bullets
Supreme Court plans to provide briefs, filings electronically
I'm filing my exit.
NEXT DAY UPDATES:
Same-sex marriage gets boost in Fla.
Beyond marriage, challenges lie ahead for gay rights groups
I wish they would shut up.
