SEATTLE (AP) — A Washington state man faces sentencing for posting threats on Facebook against a former Ferguson, Missouri, police officer who fatally shot a young black man — a case that is part of a broader legal debate over when social media rants go beyond hyperbole and become criminal acts.
Jaleel Adbul-Jabbaar pleaded guilty on Feb. 2 for posting a threat against Darren Wilson on Facebook that included a call to “give back those bullets that Police Officer Darren Wilson fired into the body of Mike Brown.”
Federal prosecutors said Abdul-Jabbaar posted inflammatory messages for months after the Aug. 9 killing of Brown sparked protests nationwide.
The federal charge of making an interstate threat carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, but prosecutors have recommended that Abdul-Jabbaar be sentenced to time served — two months — and three years of supervised release because he cooperated with state prosecutors in an unrelated shooting case. The plea deal included dismissal of charges for his other threatening messages. Sentencing is set for Monday morning.
The popularity of social media sites like Facebook and its users’ willingness to speak their minds have landed people in jail and left lawyers arguing over what constitutes a “true threat” — one not protected by the First Amendment — and what is simply an exercise of First Amendment free speech.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in December on another Facebook threat case that legal experts say could answer some of those questions. When Anthony Elonis’ wife left him, he vented on his Facebook page by posting violent threats against her in the form of rap lyrics. The justices are considering whether an “objective” standard should be used in these cases — meaning an average person would believe the writer intended to harm someone — or whether the threat was “subjective,” meaning he was just venting and didn’t intend to hurt anyone.
“Facebook ‘threats’ may be different because the person is not ‘sending them’ to the intended target; indeed, the target may find out from someone else,” said Loyola Law School Professor Marcy Strauss. “It also may depend on whether the ‘threat’ is written on the ‘victim’s’ wall, or whether it is posted on the speaker’s.
“Whether that is important may turn on the standard the Supreme Court adopts.”
Another Seattle man, Mark Brian Verhul, was sentenced last year to four years in prison for posting on Facebook a photograph and message that said “This is the cop I am going to kill.” The officer pictured had arrested Verhul and he was angry about it.
A Massachusetts man was arrested for posting “Put Wings On Pigs” on his Facebook page in December, which was a repeat of the final remarks of the shooter who killed two New York police officers.
Strauss said she believes the number of criminal cases involving social media threats are increasing “because monitoring of Facebook by government entities and by others attuned to suspicious posts is growing.”
__________________________
Follow Martha Bellisle at https://twitter.com/marthabellisle
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
To paraphrase the old drug joke: If the Internet magnifies your personality, what if you start out as an asshole?
This guy gets arrested, and yet the thousands of RWNJ’s, including some of their political representatives, make threats towards our President aren’t in prison. I agree making threats should be investigated, and if they are threats with evidence of intended violence should be legally actionable (although ANY threats towards the President should be considered legally offensive, IMO). It’s just too bad the laws aren’t applied equally.
Good Heavens. This SCOTUS heard arguments in a free speech case that involves rap lyrics with menacing or angry words? That’s a scary thought all by itself. Aren’t most of them in their late 70’s? Just yesterday they learned about the World Wide Web and not a one of them has probably ever sent an email yet…I’ll bet most of them still listen to the King of Swing too.
Allusions to the death of someone is not necessarily a direct threat, as repulsive as that may seem. I just don’t see how anyone can make law or summarily decide on a blanket standard to address all potential threats that encompass free speech. The law should take on a potential death threat or “cause to commit harm” on case by case basis based on supporting evidence of actual intent. If the Supreme Court goes ahead and makes bad law in regards to limiting free speech, where one set of standards towards any negative posts results in a sweeping net on offensive words, the overall intent will result in suppression of all 1st amendment protections based on “offensive” postings. That’s often a subjective thing as we’ve so often seen.
“…what constitutes a “true threat” (-snip-) and what is simply an exercise of First Amendment free speech.”
That answer seems plain as night and day.
jw1