(Newswire.net — December 2, 2014) — Pennsylvania – On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case – Elonis v. United States – In what could be a far-reaching case to examine the limits of free speech online.
“There’s one way to love ya, but a thousand ways to kill ya,” the aggravated man posted on Facebook, after his wife took kids and left him. He wrote, “And I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts. Hurry up and die *****.”
Elonis’ frightened wife hired a lawyer and Elonis was indicted on five counts of interstate communication of illegal threats. On the grounds that the lyrics he wrote under his rap alias ‘Tone Dougie’ represented true threats, the court sentenced him to four years in federal prison.
Elonis has now exercised his First Amendment right to free speech, saying that he was just letting some steam out. Subsequently, he appealed to the Supreme Court.
Even though Elonis’ attorney claimed that his client didn’t intend to place his wife in fear, the court confirmed Elonis’s post represent the real threat because he knew the effect they would have on his wife.
The Supreme Court, is concerned that the government’s position risks colliding with the rights protected by the First Amendment. Yet there seems to be little agreement over what standard to use.
“How does one prove what’s in somebody else’s mind?” asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to the Associated Press.
Elonis’ attorney, John Elwood, cited the case of a teenager who was convicted for posting a threat in a chatroom. A girl in the same chatroom reported the teenager, as he made a comment about shooting up a kindergarten after another teen called him a crazy.
Elwood argued that everyone has a different view of context, and a better standard would be looking at what the speaker intended. Intention could be easily determined by looking at records, such as text messages and emails, he said.
Justice Elena Kagan called for a ‘buffer zone’ under the first amendment and said they need “to ensure that even stuff that is wrongful maybe is permitted because we don’t want to chill innocent behavior.”
The free speech advocates argued that comments on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media could be hasty, impulsive, and easily misinterpreted.
“A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speaker’s intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed,” said a brief from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups on Monday.