Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday June 08 2015, @02:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the mad-rhymes dept.

After Anthony Elonis's wife left him, he began to write graphically violent rap lyrics and post them to his Facebook account. In several posts, he fantasized about murdering his estranged wife. Others contained violent thoughts about the workplace from which he had been fired, his former co-workers, and an FBI agent who had investigated the matter. In one post, he even talked about massacring a local kindergarten class.

The decision? Intent to threaten must be demonstrated in order to convict for the criminal offense of "transmission of threats in interstate commerce". The court did not rule on whether or not "recklessness" would be sufficient.

The 7-2 ruling reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and "narrowed the circumstances under which individuals can be convicted of making criminal threats under federal law when they post statements on social media like Facebook."

On Monday, the Supreme Court handed Elonis a victory by overturning his conviction. At the same time, however, the Court declined his invitation to issue a broad ruling on First Amendment grounds. Instead, the majority took a minimalist approach, deciding no more than was absolutely necessary to dispose of the case before it.

See also: Oyez and Justia.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @05:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @05:49PM (#194140)

    > Very unlike a letter sent to the victim or stuck under her car's windshield wiper.

    Not identical, but also not the same as "just venting to friends." Especially when the author knows that his wife is in the circle of people most likely to see the threats.

    The very fact that he explicitly included disclaimers about just exercising his first ammenmdnet rights in the threats makes it quite clear he was trying to have his cake and eat it too since no one includes such a disclaimer in something they know isn't threatening.