The Supreme Court wrestled Monday with alleged threats made on Facebook in a case that tests the outer bounds of free speech.(Photo: Paul Sakuma, AP)
WASHINGTON — Amid talk of violent rap lyrics and Facebook "likes," the Supreme Court wrestled Monday with an age-old question: When should a threat be taken seriously?
A majority of justices appeared to be hunting for a middle ground between reading a perpetrator's mind for intent and relying on the reaction of a "reasonable person" — the standard used to convict Anthony Elonis in 2011 of threatening his wife, legal authorities and even a kindergarten class.
That would be good news for the principle of free speech, which the high court has defended on numerous recent occasions. But the justices didn't show much sympathy for Elonis, whose Facebook rants about violence and revenge clearly didn't sit well with justices ranging in age from 54 to 81.
USA TODAY
Supreme Court faces a new frontier: Threats on Facebook
After an hour's debate, it seemed the most likely outcome would be to send the case back for a second trial, with instructions that jurors prove the despondent author either knew his words could cause fear or was reckless in posting them repeatedly.
Relying solely on another person's interpretation, Chief Justice John Roberts said, probably goes too far. Noting successful rap musicians such as Eminem often use violent lyrics in front of audiences without fear of reprisal, he said, "How do you start out if you want to be a rap artist?"
On the other hand, several justices did not appear to think Elonis' words — such as "I'm not gonna rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts" — deserved protection as a form of artistic expression.
"This is valuable First Amendment language that you think has to be protected?" Justice Antonin Scalia asked rhetorically.
The case represents a critical test of free speech in the Internet age, when video game-playing teenagers and violent spouses alike use threatening words online. The justices must seek a standard that will let jokesters off the hook while leading to prison for those who mean to cause fear — or worse.
Elonis' case offers a perfect test. After his wife, Tara, left him and took their two children, the 27-year-old lost his job at a Pennsylvania amusement park and began a series of dark posts containing explicit references to violence against his wife, co-workers, kindergartners, police and the FBI.
Sometimes, he imitated rap lyrics. Other times, he referred to his First Amendment rights. His lawyers said it was a form of therapy as well as art. "There was a misunderstanding between the two of them," lawyer John Elwood told the court.
Justice Samuel Alito, a former U.S. attorney who previously cast the lone free speech dissents against funeral protests and videos depicting violence against animals, wasn't convinced. "This sounds like a road map for threatening a spouse and getting away with it," he said.
But when it was Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben's turn at the podium, his argument — that the justices should simply affirm lower court rulings that resulted in a 44-month prison term for Elonis — didn't go over much better.
Justice Elena Kagan suggested that a jury must at least decide that Elonis was reckless. Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether Elonis must be required to know that his words were against the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted the justices "have been loath to create more exceptions to the First Amendment."
Perhaps summing up the difficulty presented by the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the term it hinges on — "true threat" — is itself "a most unhelpful phrase."
Powered By WizardRSS.com |
Rfid Protection Sleeves |
Full Text RSS Feed
