CNN news 2014-12-04 加文本

cnn news 2014-12-04

CARL AZUZ, cnn ANCHOR: Where to draw the line when protecting free speech on social media? That`s what leads off this Tuesday edition of cnn STUDENT

NEWS. The case is Elonis versus United States. The Supreme Court started hearing arguments yesterday. It involves a man named Anthony Elonis.

After his wife left him in 2010 and he lost his job, Elonis started putting violent posts on Facebook. There`s a federal law that says whoever

transmits communication threatening to injure someone, shall be fined or imprisoned. Elonis was convicted of threatening his wife and law

enforcement officials and he was imprisoned for several years.

Elonis says he was just writing rap lyrics, that his rants were therapeutic, that he never meant to seriously threaten anyone. His lawyer

says that justices should consider that, whether Elonis intended his posts to be taken literally.

A lawyer for the government says what matters here isn`t intent. It`s whether a reasonable person would feel threaten by Elonis` posts.

So, what exactly did he post?

Teachers, you may want to preview this first segment. It contains some of the violent phrases that are central with these cases.

PAMELA BROWN, cnn CORRESPONDENT: We are going to talk a little bit about your client in this case, because this really centers on what he posted on

social media.

JOHN P. ELLWOOD, ATTORNEY FOR ANTHONY D. ELONIS: What matters legally is what a reasonable person would think of it. Or what he intended by it.

One of them said, essentially, you know, if I knew then what I know now, I would have killed you and dumped you in toad creek.

They were styled as raps.

The government`s reasonable person standard would make you criminally liable. It would make you a felon, would disentitle you from voting, would

disentitle you from owning a firearm.

Anytime you fail to anticipate that what you say is going to be interpreted as a threat.

BROWN: He`s being very clear. What did he expect to accomplish with these comments?

ELLWOOD: Then he said, you know, this is therapeutic for me. This is just for me, it`s not for anybody else.

And there`s a reason why all these graphic songs are written, and that they are cathartic, they work through experiences. When, M&M wrote these

things, that he`s been prosecuted for a felony for writing this songs. Which are virtually indistinguishable.

It was the government position that they said again and again. And their argument to the jury it doesn`t matter what he thinks, and in the United

States, I don`t think you can say it doesn`t matter what the defendant thinks, in the speech prosecution.