SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday June 08 2015, @03:46PM
I get what you're trying to say, but threats without the intent to follow through on can sure seem like serious threats to other people. Which can seriously affect people's ability to live their lives.
Kids might not have learned that yet, but if an adult threatens someone, they should expect to be held accountable for it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:54PM
> threats without the intent to follow through on can sure seem like serious threats to other people.
This case isn't about intent to follow through, it is about intent to threaten. The SCOTUS ruled that intent to threaten is required, not whether the victim felt threatened. He would have been convicted under the SCOTUS standard too, its just that the original court used the more lax standard. His case is going to be retried and he'll be convicted again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:58PM
His case is going to be retried and he'll be convicted again.
How could it be retried at this point?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @04:03PM
Superior courts remand cases all the time. This is not double jeopardy because he was not acquitted, the conviction was just reversed.