Free To Threaten

From USA Today:
"Violent threats on Facebook may be OK, justices rule"

 

The Supreme Court struck another blow for free speech Monday, ruling that threats made over the Internet are protected unless they are intentionally malevolent. The decision was a temporary victory for Anthony Elonis and those like him whose threatening words on Facebook or similar social media sites may instill fear in their targets. It was a defeat for the government and groups that defend victims of domestic violence. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision for a near-unanimous court. It was based on the court's interpretation of a federal statute, rather than under the First Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, and Justice Samuel Alito dissented in part. Elonis was 27 and recently unemployed in Pennsylvania five years ago when he began posting threats against his estranged wife and others, from a generic kindergarten class to the FBI agents who came to his door. He was convicted on four counts of transmitting threats and sentenced to 44 months in prison. He completed his term a year ago. The question that has split federal appeals courts is whether the threats must be intentional, or whether they are illegal just because a "reasonable person" -- such as those on the receiving end -- takes them seriously. Elonis was convicted under the latter standard; a majority of justices ruled that's not sufficient. "Federal criminal liability generally does not turn solely on the results of an act without considering the defendant's mental state," Roberts wrote. Elonis might not be off the hook, however. The high court's ruling means his case will be sent back to a lower court to determine whether he meant what he posted or was at least reckless in posting it. If the court rules that his posts were intentionally or recklessly threatening, his conviction would stand. The case represents a critical test of free speech in the Internet age, when words that seem threatening emanate from violent spouses and video game-players alike. The justices were seeking a rule that could result in locking up the former and letting the latter off the hook. The current Supreme Court has been a strong defender of free speech rights, going so far as to permit distasteful protests at military funerals and online videos depicting animal torture. But it also has drawn lines, ruling last term against the free speech rights of a previously convicted military protester and opponents of then-President George W. Bush who were moved from their protest site by the Secret Service.

^ I used to think it was illegal for anyone to say or write a threat of violence, but I guess the Supreme Court decided that you can threatened someone and get away with it. I am all for free speech except when it calls for physical violence against someone. This Supreme Court doesn't seem that capable of making the important decisions they have had to make. ^

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/01/supreme-court-facebook-threat/23901307/