Teh One Who Knocks
06-02-2015, 11:59 AM
Gabrielle Bluestone - Gawker
http://i.imgur.com/wDEdS1r.jpg
A man who posted graphic Facebook updates describing the myriad ways he might torture and murder his wife didn’t actually threaten her within the legal meaning of the term, the Supreme Court ruled Monday. The decision is at once a victory for free speech and a significant hurdle for victims of online harassment.
Although the case, Elonis v. United States, touched on the larger issue of social media communications, the justices’ 8-1 decision ultimately focused on something much more specific: criminal intent.
Before the case ended up in the Supreme Court, Anthony Elonis was convicted on four counts of criminal threats over his posts, which the Times reports contained references to putting his wife’s “head on a stick,” killing an FBI agent, and shooting up a class full of children to “make a name” for himself.
Elonis claimed the posts were merely rap lyrics and not intended to be threatening.
The prosecution argued that his messages were so explicit that they could only be taken one way.
The Court ruled Monday that they were not.
So what, then, is legal standard for proving intent in online threat cases? Who knows! The justices apparently declined to give any kind of guidelines for future cases beyond overturning Elonis’ conviction. Via the New York Times:
Chief Justice Roberts said a criminal conviction requires more than consideration of how the posts would be understood by a reasonable person (the legal standard lawyers call negligence). Rather, he said, prosecutors had to prove that Mr. Elonis was aware of his wrongdoing.
The law barring threats, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “is satisfied if the defendant transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat, or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat.” Saying the parties had not argued the point, he declined to say “whether recklessness suffices.”
Only Clarence Thomas dissented, writing, “Our job is to decide questions, not create them. Given the majority’s ostensible concern for protecting innocent actors, one would have expected it to announce a clear rule — any clear rule.”
http://i.imgur.com/wDEdS1r.jpg
A man who posted graphic Facebook updates describing the myriad ways he might torture and murder his wife didn’t actually threaten her within the legal meaning of the term, the Supreme Court ruled Monday. The decision is at once a victory for free speech and a significant hurdle for victims of online harassment.
Although the case, Elonis v. United States, touched on the larger issue of social media communications, the justices’ 8-1 decision ultimately focused on something much more specific: criminal intent.
Before the case ended up in the Supreme Court, Anthony Elonis was convicted on four counts of criminal threats over his posts, which the Times reports contained references to putting his wife’s “head on a stick,” killing an FBI agent, and shooting up a class full of children to “make a name” for himself.
Elonis claimed the posts were merely rap lyrics and not intended to be threatening.
The prosecution argued that his messages were so explicit that they could only be taken one way.
The Court ruled Monday that they were not.
So what, then, is legal standard for proving intent in online threat cases? Who knows! The justices apparently declined to give any kind of guidelines for future cases beyond overturning Elonis’ conviction. Via the New York Times:
Chief Justice Roberts said a criminal conviction requires more than consideration of how the posts would be understood by a reasonable person (the legal standard lawyers call negligence). Rather, he said, prosecutors had to prove that Mr. Elonis was aware of his wrongdoing.
The law barring threats, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “is satisfied if the defendant transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat, or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat.” Saying the parties had not argued the point, he declined to say “whether recklessness suffices.”
Only Clarence Thomas dissented, writing, “Our job is to decide questions, not create them. Given the majority’s ostensible concern for protecting innocent actors, one would have expected it to announce a clear rule — any clear rule.”