The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a man who posted threats on Facebook, in a case that has been closely watched for its implications on free speech.
Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man, in 2010 made threats on Facebook in the form of rap lyrics, many of them talking about killing his estranged wife. Elonis, who also threatened an unspecified kindergarten class, police officers and an FBI agent, had maintained that he was exercising his First Amendment rights. He was sentenced to more than three years in prison.
In a 7-2 decision, the high court said the standard the lower court applied — whether a reasonable person viewed Elonis posts as a threat — was not enough, it had to consider whether his posts were true threats.
Such a reasonable person standard is a familiar feature of civil liability in tort law, but is inconsistent with the conventional requirement for criminal conduct—awareness of some wrongdoing , Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
Although the high court s decision was based solely on the standard used to convict Elonis, free-speech advocates cheered it anyway.
Today s decision properly recognizes that the law has for centuries required the government to prove criminal intent before putting someone in jail, said Steven R. Shapiro, national legal director for the ACLU, in an emailed statement. That principle is especially important when a prosecution is based on a defendant s words. The Internet does not change this long-standing rule. While today s decision insists on fairness, it is not a license to threaten, which remains illegal when properly proved.
In his dissent, Justice Sam Alito wrote: The Court holds that the jury instructions in this case were defective because they required only negligence in conveying a threat. But the Court refuses to explain what type of intent was necessary. Did the jury need to find that Elonis had the purpose of conveying a true threat? Was it enough if he knew that his words conveyed such a threat? Would recklessness suffice? The Court declines to say. Attorneys and judges are left to guess.
The decision comes amid a growing conversation about online threats. During Gamergate last year, for example, women who criticized gaming s misogynist culture became targets of violent threats. Pew Research late last year collected its research so far on social-media threats and harassment: One survey showed that social-media threats can have real consequences, including physical harm; another Pew survey showed significant instances of harassment, threats and stalking. In response, social media companies such as Twitter have boosted efforts to deal with threats and abuse, such as by broadening the definition of abuse, as Queenie Wong wrote last month.
Photo of Supreme Court building from AFP/Getty Images
