Freedom of Speech
Locate and read the following article.
In order to access the resource below, you must first log into the myCSU Student Portal and access the Academic Search Complete database within the CSU Online Library.
Walsh, M. (2015). High Court Rules in Online Threat, Religious Rights Cases. Education Week, 34(34), 19.
Provide a two page case study which examines freedom of speech and expression as they relate to the following two U.S. Supreme Court case decisions:
- Elonis v. United States
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
You will want to relate the case to what you have learned in this course. Case study should be at least two pages not including the title page and reference page and follow APA guidelines.
Title:
Authors:
Source:
Publisher Information:
Publication Year:
Subject Terms:
Description:
Language:
ISSN:
Rights:
Accession Number:
Persistent link to this record
(Permalink):
Cut and Paste:
Database:
The link information below provides a persistent link to the article you’ve requested. Record: 1
High Court Rules in Online Threat, Religious Rights Cases
Walsh, Mark
Education Week. June 10, 2015, Vol. 34 Issue 34, 19
Editorial Projects in Education, Inc., 2015.
2015
Employment discrimination — Religious aspects In two decisions last week, the U.S. Supreme Court touched on a English
0277-4232
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. edsgac.A418869585
https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login? High Court Rules in Online Threat, Religious Gale in Context: College
High Court Rules in Online Threat, Religious Rights Cases
In two decisions last week, the U.S. Supreme Court touched on a pair of issues — potentially threatening https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgac&AN=edsgac.A418869585&site=eds-live&scope=site online speech and religious accommodation — that are playing out in schools as much as in the rest of The speech case, Elonis v. United States (No. 13-983), saw the justices ruling 8-1 to overturn the federal Meanwhile, in a separate case being watched by educators, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Both rulings, however, had some advocates saying they had hoped for more clarity from the high court on Mr. Elonis testified in court that the posting was a reference to the song, “I’m Back,” by the rap artist He was charged under a general federal criminal statute against making threats. His lawyers sought a He was convicted on four counts and sentenced to nearly four years in prison, a sentence he has served.
High School Threats “Such a ‘reasonable person’ standard is inconsistent with the conventional requirement for criminal Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Though he concurred with the outcome, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said in an opinion that the majority http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/eds/delivery?sid=9e996298-8279-462d-a7ec-94a5314ee958%40sessionmgr103&vid=3&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.b.ebscohost.com%2feds%2fdetail%2fdetail%3fvid%3d2%26sid%3d9e996298-8279-462d-a7ec-94a5314ee958%2540sessionmgr103%26bdata%3dJnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%253d%253d#toc Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissent, saying he would have upheld the subjective-intent standard.
“There is nothing absurd about punishing an individual who, with knowledge of the words he uses and Frank D. LoMonte, the executive director of the Student Press Law Center in Washington, said the court’s “It would have been much better if the court had grappled with the constitutional issues, because we are “Our concern is for the kid who makes a feeble attempt at humor about how he wishes his school would A ‘Straightforward’ Rule Ms. Elauf interviewed for the job and received generally high marks. But the store manager, who A federal district court granted summary judgment to the EEOC, which had taken up Ms. Elauf s The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, threw out the suit, concluding that Title VII of Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Justice Scalia said that to prevail in a religious-bias claim, a job “The rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/eds/delivery?sid=9e996298-8279-462d-a7ec-94a5314ee958%40sessionmgr103&vid=3&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.b.ebscohost.com%2feds%2fdetail%2fdetail%3fvid%3d2%26sid%3d9e996298-8279-462d-a7ec-94a5314ee958%2540sessionmgr103%26bdata%3dJnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%253d%253d#toc straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a His opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Justice Alito concurred in the judgment. Justice Thomas dissented, saying that Abercrombie was merely Lisa Soronen, the executive director of the State and Local Legal Center, based in Washington, said the “I think it is still unclear after this ruling how far an employer has to go to find out whether an employee Jenifer Wicks, the litigation director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, said the The group had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Ms. Elauf s side that discussed abuse that some Muslim With the suit revived, the case now goes back to the 10th Circuit court for reconsideration.
~~~~~~~~ Copyright of Education Week is the property of Editorial Projects in Education Inc. and its content may
Persistent link to this record: Following the link below will bring you to the start of the article or citation.
Cut and Paste: To place article links in an external web document, simply copy and paste the HTML below, starting
with “
Education
pair of issues–potentially threatening online speech and religious
accommodation–that are playing out in schools as much as in […]
COPYRIGHT 2015 Editorial Projects in Education, Inc.
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=edsgac&AN=edsgac.A418869585&site=eds-
live&scope=site
Rights Cases
society.
criminal conviction of Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man whose postings on Face- book included talk of
shooting up a kindergarten class. But the majority stopped short of making any broad First Amendment
rulings about Internet threats.
v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc. (No. 14-86), the court bolstered religious protections for employees by
ruling for a young Muslim woman who was denied a job at a clothing retailer because she wore a hijab, or
head scarf.
how the rulings should be applied by those seeking to make decisions in these contentious areas. The
Elonis ruling involved a 27-year-old amusement-park employee in 2010 who was experiencing difficulties
with his wife and his job when he began posting violent material on Facebook, including: “Enough
elementary schools in a 10-mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined. And
hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class. The only question is which one?”
Eminem, in which the artist had criticized his ex-wife and fantasized about participating in the 1999
shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Mr. Elonis also maintained that his violent postings
were part of a fictitious, rap-artist persona done in part for therapeutic reasons.
jury instruction that would have required proof that he intended to communicate true threats to his targets.
But the trial judge instead held that Mr. Elonis could be convicted if a “reasonable person” would have
perceived his communications as threatening.
Writing for six other members of the court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said that it was not enough
to prove that reasonable people would feel threatened by a statement.
conduct — awareness of some wrongdoing,” the chief justice said.
Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined his opinion.
failed to provide enough guidance to lower courts in threat cases.
their ordinary meaning in context, makes a threat,” Justice Thomas said. “For instance, a high school
student who sends a letter to his principal stating that he will massacre his classmates with a machine
gun, even if he intended the letter as a joke, cannot fairly be described as engaging in innocent conduct.”
decision was “narrow” and cautious.”
clearly m need of more guidance on First Amendment protection for potentially threatening Internet
speech, Mr. LoMonte said. The SPLC had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Mr. Elonis, arguing
that students and other young people who are prolific users of social media often are unaware of how far
their speech will travel in cyberspace and how it will be perceived.
blow up on the day of his calculus final,” Mr. LoMonte said. “That student certainly doesn’t belong in
federal prison, and I think the world is a little safer for that student today after Elonis.”
In the head-scarf case, the justices ruled 8-1 to revive the reHgious-discrimination suit filed by Samantha
Elauf, who had just graduated from high school in 2008 when she sought a job at an Abercrombie store
at a Tulsa, Okla., mall.
presumed Ms. Elauf was Muslim and wore the scarf for religious reasons, consulted a higher-ranking
manager, who said the head scarf would violate the chain’s “look policy,” which barred any head
coverings by store employees, and thus Ms. Elauf could not be hired. (The retailer has softened its policy
since then and made clear that Muslim head scarves are permissible.)
disCTimination complaint. After a trial over damages, a jury awarded her $20,000.
the Civil Rights Act of 1974 does not bar an employer from taking action against an applicant or
employee based on a religious practice unless the employer received explicit, verbal notice of the
religious conflict.
applicant need only show that his or her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the
employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of the need.
factor in employment decisions,” Justice Scalia said.
and Kagan.
applying its neutral policy against head wear, not intentionally discriminating based on religion.
ruling was a disappointment to employers, including those in the public sector such as school districts
whose interests the center represented in a friend-of-the-court brief on Abercrombie’s side.
needs a religious accommodation,” she said. “Employers would have liked more clarity out of this
opinion.”
court’s decision “sends the message that Muslim women practicing their religion is something that has to
be accommodated.”
girls have faced in schools for wearing a hijab. While the legal principles of the case apply to
employment, Ms. Wicks said, “this decision is one the schools can use to discuss these issues.”
By Mark Walsh
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.