The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on case about the limits of free speech on the social media, whether a man’s life-threatening messages were protected speech. Anthony Elonis, served time in a Pennsylvania prison for threats against his ex-wife that he claimed were just to vent his anger and not to be taken literally. In recent cases judges have been divided over the issue of intent, whether those making the threat intended to make their targets fearful and intimidated. The Supreme Court justices seemed to be skeptical about the argument that Elonis’ rants were not to be taken seriously, one justice saying that it is impossible to go into a person’s mind to discern intent. (Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2014, by David G. Savage)
The Editorial Board of The Washington Post, December 2, 2014, argued that while Elonis’ postings were disgusting, it would be a mistake to rest the decision of his guilt on such a flimsy standard as that the speech was illegal if “a reasonable person would construe… [the] words to be a serious threat.” The editorial pointed out the difficulty of construing intent given the absence or different presentation of “tone of voice, facial expression and social context.”
CBS, December 1, 2014, thought that the justices “gave no clear indication” of how they would rule in the Elonis case citing the skepticism expressed about the arguments advanced by both sides. The attorney for Elonis said that there was too much risk of chilling speech when robust speech might be misinterpreted as a threat. The government advanced the case that if the decision went for Elonis it would provide a legal way to threaten people and make laws against stalking more difficult to enforce.
Click for court documents on the case.