Monday, November 28, 2011

Freedom of speech?

A man named Nathan Shafer was arrested for posting a Facebook comment that was viewed as a threat to South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. After 19 Occupy Columbia members were arrested, Haley posted that she "appreciate[s] freedom of speech," and in response to this, Shafer commented, "I hope someone murders you before I do. How's that for freedom of speech?" He did apologize and delete the comment, but is still being prosecuted for the threat.

Can Shafer's action be defended by The First Amendment, or is there a just reason to prosecute him? Is there only a certain extent to which freedom of speech overrules?

Something to think about: Several months ago, another man made online comments calling for Obama's assassination. A federal court upheld the fact that he was simply exercising his rights.

14 comments:

Jamie Moore said...

While it is clearly an inappropriate and idiotic thing to post publicly on the internet, I suppose the First Amendment does protect his rights to voice his opinion. Personally, I don't think that actions like that should be allowed, despite the promise of free speech. If we allow our own citizens to threaten the President and burn the American flag, how does that reflect on us as a nation?

Anonymous said...

Whenever a politician is involved, there is no way anyone will get off easy. They definitely should still prosecute him because he needs to face the consequences for making such a comment publicly. While there is freedom of speech, there are also specific laws against death threats and hate speech. So while he is technically protected by the first amendment, he is still breaking a law.

Sophia Wu said...

I agree with Jamie that Shafer's action is defended by the first amendment. However, I think that Shafer can only be prosecuted if there is clear evidence that Shafer was taking actions to carry out his threat.
If the prosecution does not come to a close, I have to wonder at what point will the courts stop infringing upon people's rights. Will joking comments made online be taken as serious threats? Where should the line be drawn?

Meredith Charlson said...

I do think that arresting and prosecuting Shafer is appropriate. A threat on any life should be taken seriously and investigated to make sure that there was no actual intent to kill. I also don’t think that he is protected under the First Amendment. The limitations to the First Amendment, or at least the ones that I found, are defamation, causing panic, fighting words, incitement to crime, sedition, and obscenity. Unlike the man who made comments about Obama being assassinated, Shafer wrote his comment directly to Governor Nikki Haley. "I will kill you" is a lot different than "Obama should be killed." In my opinion, this difference causes Shafer's comment to fall under the category of fighting words which are not protected by the First Amendment.

Ashley Petroff said...

Such an inappropriate comment goes beyond the rights given under the First Amendment. Shafer sent the South Carolina Governor a death threat, which is not something any American citizen has a right to do. His threat should be considered assault and taken very seriously. Regardless of what he says after-the-fact, it is unknown whether or not Shafer's threat actually posed any serious danger to the Governor. Blatantly sending such threatening messages is comparable to yelling "fire" in a theater, which is illegal. Whether or not the message is being sent to a politician or to an average person, death threats should always be taken seriously because you never know what a person's true intentions are.

Calvin Ng said...

I agree with meredith on this. The words Shafer posted on facebook are inciteful of violent actions or as meredith said "incitement to crime". I do not believe that this man is protected by the First Amendment.

However, should this man be prosecuted? It is up Haley. If the courts took every "death threat" seriously, police officers would be arresting citizens left and right for the phrase "I'd kill to _______" (example, "I'd kill for a salary that big" or "I'd kill for that job"). So while I don't believe he is protected by the First Amendment rights, it really is up to Haley if he wants to take Shafer's comment seriously and prosecute him for his comment.

This story reminded me of one I heard a while back. My brother had read in the news about a family of a soldier who had died was holding a funeral when a man just outside the graveyard was holding up a sign saying "Thank God for more dead soldiers." I despised that story because the family sued the guy holding the sign but he was protected by the First Amendment and the family ended up losing the court case. While I despise the person for holding that sign during a MILITARY burial of a soldier that died in combat fighting for our country, I couldn't tell if his sign was protected by the First Amendment or not. Its somewhat similar to this case where the vagueness of the First Amendment creates these situations where you can't really tell if the person should or shouldn't be protected.

robertbaiata said...

I believe shafer's actions are defended by the first amendment. Also with the guy that posted for Obama's assassination would probably help shafers case to make him go free as the guy who posted for Obama's assassination went free . I see the two post being the same as they both want someone dead which i think is totally wrong but i believe shafer will go free.

Ryu (Richard Leung) said...

The end of Taylor's post bring up an interesting point: Someone threatens the governor of South Carolina and gets persecuted, while someone else threatens the President of the United States and gets away with it. Does this make sense? What's done is done though; even though Shafer apologized and deleted the comment, he still made that comment. And also, there is no actual evidence (yet?) that Shafer was planning to kill the governor of South Carolina. I don't see a difference between his comment and the other person's comment about Obama's assassination, so I agree that the First Amendment protects his freedom of speech.

AliceZheng said...

If people were persecuted for stupidity that was posted online, our legal system would have a pretty big task on its hands. However, given with the severity of such a statement, it would be unwise to ever go around threatening to kill the president of a very powerful country, even if it is an act of free speech. I just feel like being prosecuted for online comments would go out of control, as things posted online do seem worse than things actually spoken. I think persecuting someone for just posting a comment like that would be unjustifiable.

Jennifer Nguyen said...

I'm pretty sure that death threats are not covered the first amendment. If someone feels threatened on their life, then I think the first amendment should not be applicable. There's a point where a threat becomes an action, and if he had been serious with this threat, then someone could have died. It brings into question how we can decide to what point should we follow the bill of rights?

SimoneJacobs said...

Today's world communicates so much via technology, like texting and social networking, that it almost seems as if a completely different language has been created. I don't mean abbreviations like LOL or OMG, but the actual connotation of what is said is different than the spoken word. People seem to say cruel or threatening things much more easily over the internet than in person, as though what they are saying is less significant because it is only written and not spoken aloud. I highly doubt that Shafer would have said "I hope someone murders you" to Haley's face unless he truly meant to. People need to become more aware of the significance of what they are saying while online.

I am not defending Shafer's stupid decision to make threats to political figures, but I do think that the courts should consider the "internet factor" during Shafer's prosecution.

CurtisOta said...

I honestly didn't find anything wrong with his comment; it was obviously sarcastic and comical, not a serious threat to her life.

The federal government needs to make the distinction between actual threats and sarcasm. I think the context to his comment is extremely important. He didnt say this threat to her face, rather posted this comment on facebook. People say the craziest s&#t on facebook, and that needs taken into consideration before anything is done to him.

Raging man plus internet obviously equals lighthearted death threats to politicians.

Like Alice said, "If people were persecuted for stupidity that was posted online, our legal system would have a pretty big task on its hands."

Unknown said...

Although I believe that everyone should have their rights, there are some points where one needs to draw the line. Threatening to kill someone is definitely taking it too far and it should be a concern for the person or public's safety. If you say it online, you should be able to say it in person, and that makes it a threat. People should have some sort of punishment for threats online. Isn't that sort of considered cyber bullying? This in my opinion should be against the law. The only problem is knowing how to properly define it.

Sarah Felix-Almirol said...

Curtis and Simone bring up a valid point that technology could be a factor of the transparency of Shafer's statement. He knew, and anyone who uses the internet frequently knows that we share the burden of being responsible for our words on the internet. He was probably under the circumstances of being overzealous to impose his opinion on Haley. This is still no excuse to go on threatening her life.

I believe the reason people are getting confused over the indications of the first amendment and the indications of cyber-bullying/death threats come down to whether prosecuting someone based on their words and potential actions is a good idea. I encourage everyone to really think about the other side. Even if they just want to not to take the chance that something might happen.

I agree with Calvin, it would place Haley in an awkward position any way she tries to pull off the case with Shafer. There has to be some form of action to make Shafer legally repent for his words that would make Haley seem like she is just upholding the rules, not becoming biased because it is an offence to her person. How would it look if she showed some overzealous action to his words?