See the attached document for details and work the work must be original not copy and paste. The document needed to complete the work is also attached.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
ATTACHMENT PREVIEW
Download attachment
ATTACHMENT PREVIEW
Download attachment
Authors:
Source:
Document Type:
Subject Terms:
Company/Entity:
NAICS/Industry
Codes:
Abstract:
Full Text Word
Count:
ISSN:
Accession
Number:
High
Court
Rules
in
Online
Threat
,
Religious
Rights
Cases
.
Walsh
, Mark
Education
Week
. 6/10/2015, Vol. 34 Issue 34, p19-19. 2/3p.
Article
*
Freedom of speech — Lawsuits & claims
*
Discrimination in employment — Law & legislation
*
Judgments (Law)
*
Threats — Law & legislation
*
Online
social networks
*
Muslim women — Clothing
United States. Supreme
Court
519130
Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals
The article reports on two recent U.S. Supreme
Court
decisions which it says
may apply to school-related situations: Elonis v. United States, pertaining to
online
social media postings apparently making threats of violence, and
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores
Inc., pertaining to a young Muslim woman not hired for a job due to wearing a
head scarf. The latter case was brought by Oklahoma resident Samantha
Elauf.
1262
0277-4232
103227967
View the Answer
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
online
speech and
religious
accommodation — that are playing out in schools as
much as in the rest of society.
The speech case, Elonis v. United States (No. 13-983), saw the justices ruling 8-1 to overturn
the federal 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.
Meanwhile, in a separate case being watched by educators, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission 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.
Both rulings, however, had some advocates saying they had hoped for more clarity from the
high
court
on 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 dif±culties 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?”
Mr. Elonis testi±ed in
court
that the posting was a reference to the song, “I’
m
Back,” by the rap
artist 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 ±ctitious, rap-artist persona done in part for therapeutic reasons.
He was charged under a general federal criminal statute against making threats. His lawyers
sought a 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.
He was convicted on four counts and sentenced to nearly four years in prison, a sentence he
has served.
High School Threats
Writing for six other members of the
court
, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said that it was not
Listen
American Accent
Show entire document
