On Friday, Oct. 25, 2013, a man in the St. Louis area was
arrested for his postings on twitter. A SLU grad with experience in the PR
field, specifically working with social media, Robert Metzinger, 31, was taken
into custody after there had been reports of threatening posts created by him
online. These menacing tweets were in reference to the World Series, connecting
the recent baseball games to the Boston Marathon bombings, and making supposed
connections between the April Boston attacks and Busch Stadium.
Although Metzinger has deleted his twitter account since the
arrest, the tweets read as the following, according to the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch:
“@bobbymetzinger: Putting my loft up for a ridiculous
“Boston-only” rate for the #WorldSeries. Pressure cooker sold separately.”
“@bobbymetzinger: The #WorldSeries will be another finish
line not crossed by #Boston.”
The connection he is drawing to the Boston Marathon attacks
is undeniable. With such facts, like the bomb used in Boston was made with a
pressure cookers, known by the general American public, the connection cannot
be mistaken.
It’s no shock that these words stunned some of Metzinger’s
twitter followers, who then reported the tweets to officials.
The Post-Dispatch reported that Police Chief Sam Dotson said
his tweets were being considered terrorist threats, and the city of St. Louis
was not going to take any chances with Metzinger. Dotson said it was not worth
risking the safety of baseball fans.
However, Dotson does not believe Metzinger had taken any
further steps to carry out his allegations; nor does Metzinger, according to
police, have any major kind of criminal record. My question, then, is whether
or not this speech will be protected by the first amendment.
As we discussed in class, Brandenburg is the current
standard for determining seditious speech, making it the precedent that any
speech must include “imminent lawless action” and “the advocacy is also likely
to incite or produce such action” to be charged as seditious (Cornell University
Law School). Although I agree with the putting the safety of the baseball fans
first, I am not convinced that Metzinger will be found guilty.
The police chief blankly stated that he did not believe that
Metzinger had taken any further action in following through with his threats.
There was no substance to the tweets Metzinger sent that would lead anyone to
believe he actually had a plan in moving forward with a bombing. Was this
actually lawless action, or was Metzinger simply trying (unsuccessfully) to
make a joke via social media, knowing a Boston team would be present at Busch
Stadium? It was the prior action that occurred in Boston that incited the fear
within readers.
I do not believe, by the Brandenburg standard, that
Metzinger did anything wrong enough to be charged against the first amendment.
His words led to no further imminent or lawless action. I can completely
understand as to why people would be scared, and as to why law enforcement did
what they did in order to put the safety of baseball fans first. However, by
the definition of freedom of speech in America, with the standard set over the
course of our country’s history, Metzinger did not violate any of his rights,
and I believe his speech should be protected by the first amendment.
References:
I agree with Annalise’s arguments. This is a very tricky case with emotions running very high swirling around a major sporting event. Spectators’ safety is important but it is also important to not infringe upon an individual’s First Amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteMr. Metzinger had to have known the frenzy he would create with these tweets. That is probably the whole reason why he did it. Security around sporting events is still a very sensitive topic, and people are still on high alert following the bombings at the Boston Marathon. The comments Mr. Metzinger made on Twitter, on the surface, seemed to indicate that spectators at the World Series would be in danger. At this point, I understand the St. Louis police questions Mr. Metzinger about his comments and intentions. I don’t believe he should be charged with any sort of crime. These comments did not incite any danger around the World Series games played at Busch Stadium or at Fenway Park. Even though these tweets are troubling to read, Mr. Metzinger still has the First Amendment right to freely post them.
I would have to agree with Annalise on this subject. While the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, it is up to the individual on what they say. In this case Robert Metzinger chose multiple foolish things to say. I can see why his tweet’s gathered so much attention from the media and police. Because the bombing happened earlier this year and is still fresh, his tweets were not the wisest things to put.
ReplyDeleteHowever, just because his tweets are offensive and ill written, does not mean that he should be arrested. The first amendment guarantee’s this kind of speech even if we do not like it. I can see though with the recentness of the Boston bombing that police would take action to prevent any other sort of attack. Also because this was a major sport event, police were likely taking extra precaution. I think that regardless of free speech, if people make comments such as these, they can almost expect to have some kind of repercussions based off of past events.
When I first heard of this story I was surprised that Metzinger was arrested for his tweets. His tweets were very foolish things to say via social media, but I do not think that it will be enough for him to be charged. It is a very sensitive subject being the recent terrorist attack in Boston, I think people were just freaked out and very emotional when reading his tweets. I read the tweets as a very inappropriate joke and did not think the man should be arrested. I agree with what Annalise said and believe that with the current FA standard, Metzinger did not violate any of his rights.
ReplyDelete