Supreme Court Overturns Conviction For Man Who Posted 'Threatening' Messages On Facebook

schwit1 sends news that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 in favor of Anthony Elonis, a man who wrote a series of angry messages on Facebook. The posts included quotes from rap lyrics containing "violent imagery," and were directed at Elonis's wife, his co-workers, law enforcement, and a kindergarten class. Elonis was charged and convicted under a federal statute that outlaws "any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another." The jury in his case was told the standard for judging such a threat was whether a "reasonable person" would interpret it as such. According to the Court's ruling (PDF), that standard was not enough to convict him. They call it "a standard feature of civil liability in tort law inconsistent with the conventional criminal conduct requirement of 'awareness of some wrongdoing.'" The case is notable for being the first Supreme Court ruling about free speech on social media, but the ruling itself was quite narrow.

Comments

Why Didn't They Strike Down That Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any law that makes "any communication..." illegal is clearly unconstitutional. Why didn't they strike it down? They failed us by allowing Obamacare to remain on the books, and now this. I wish the SCOTUS would do it's job.

Re:Too late for him

[Graydyn Young]

Your post made me curious enough to read the article to hear some of the things Elonis said. Here's my favorite:

When his wife secured a Protection From Abuse order by a state judge, Elonis went on Facebook to declare, “Fold up your PFA and put it in your pocket. Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?”

What a charming man.

I'd take this further

[s.petry]

The real outcome should be that people realize that words are just words, and opinions are only opinions. The amount of criminal acts on Facebook can probably be counted on a few fingers. Even the kid posting that he hated and wanted to kill Obama is just a kid with an opinion. People say dumb things in anger, it's how people react to that anger which shapes a person.

The "illegal" stuff on the internet is already illegal. You can't buy and/or sell drugs, you can't hire a hitman, you can't sell secret information for money, you can't traffic illegal goods including humans, etc.. etc.. All of those things are illegal, and none of them require the Internet to accomplish.

That someone dislikes an opinion.. not illegal. Even if they call you names and yell at you for having a different opinion, it is not illegal.