The freedom of religion and the freedom of the press are fundamental rights that are protected under the First Amendment of the US constitution. The First Amendment makes it clear that there is no religion superior to the other and that individuals should not be restricted from practicing their religious practices. The freedom of the press allows the press and individuals to speak and express themselves freely without censorship from the government. Nevertheless, these freedoms have come under threat in different circumstances. It is the mandate of the courts of various jurisdictions to determine cases where these freedoms are said to have been violated. This paper analyses the Elonis v. United States and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. cases and their relation to the freedom of speech and expression.
Freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under the First Amendment. However, the freedom has its limitations, such as when fighting words, defamation, obscenity, etc. are involved. One specific instance when the freedom of speech becomes limited is when the speech poses “true threats” to other individuals (Snow, 2015). Threats such as the attack on one’s life induce fear. Conventionally, communication in person, direct messages, and phone conversations have been used to pass different messages. However, the invention of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter has disrupted the communication landscape (United States Courts, n.d.). This development has impacted the determination of cases involving the use of social media since any restriction is seen to be a curtailment to the First Amendment freedom of speech and expression.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the Elonis v. United States case, Elonis had been convicted by courts of lower jurisdiction as having abused his freedom of speech. Elonis was accused of having threatened different individuals, including the ex-wife and employees at his former workplace through Facebook (Snow, 2015). In his defense, Elonis had argued that the posted statements were some form of rap therapy to the frustrations he had been through. The lower courts’ judgments had been based on the premise that the communications were threatening if “a reasonable person” perceived them to be so (Snow, 2015). When issuing its judgment, which departed from the lower courts’ rulings, the US Supreme Court stated that the “reasonable person” standard was inconsistent with the traditional requirement for criminal conduct. The US Supreme Court ruling was interpreted as cautionary and one that did not intend to interfere with the First Amendment freedom of expression. However, the ruling failed to set guidelines as to how cases involving online threats could be determined. Social media sites have become increasingly adopted in everyday messaging (United States Courts, n.d.). Social media bullying is also prevalent. Hence, there is an urgent need to strike a balance between the freedom of speech and the abuse of these rights when using social media.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. case involved a potential employee, Elauf, who had been denied an employment opportunity due to her religious practices. Elauf, a practicing Muslim had donned a headscarf as part of religious practice. Putting on a headscarf went against Abercrombie dressing code policies at the time. The EEOC presented Elauf’s complaint to a federal district court in which she was awarded damages for the discrimination (Vile, 2015). The ruling was, however, overruled by the US Court of Appeals in Denver. The court of appeal ruled that Abercrombie had not engaged in religious discrimination since the potential employee had not overtly expressed the need for religious accommodation. The US Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of Elius, stating that the rule of religious accommodation was quite straightforward. Employers should not base their employment decisions on an employee’s religious practice, whether explicitly stated by the potential employee or not. In cases involving religious discrimination, prospective employees need only prove that religious consideration was a factor in deciding whether to hire (Vile, 2015). Religious activists positively welcomed the ruling since it encouraged religious expression and diversity. Some circles, however, stated that the ruling brought unclarity as to the lengths that employers should go in determining the need for religious accommodation in their potential employees.
Conclusively, the US Supreme Court rulings affirmed the criticality of the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom of religion as enshrined in the First Amendment. The ruling on freedom of speech and its relation to online usage needs further clarification due to the increasing instances of the abuse of this freedom. How would one determine if threats issued on social media were indeed true or some joke? The religious accommodation ruling promotes religious expression. Often, religious practices have no impact on businesses. Hence, it would be unfair to discriminate against individuals based on their religion.
References
Snow, E. (2015). Radford.edu. Retrieved 26 June 2020, from https://www.radford.edu/content/va-chiefs/home/august-2015/elonis-v-us.html .
United States Courts. Elonis v. US . United States Courts. Retrieved 26 June 2020, from https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/elonis-v-us .
Vile, J. (2015). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. . Mtsu.edu. Retrieved 26 June 2020, from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1453/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-abercrombie-fitch-stores-inc .
