Are rants and threats posted on Facebook protected under the First Amendment or can someone be convicted for posting them, just like any other threat? That’s a major question the Supreme Court will debate today.
The court will begin hearing oral arguments in Elonis v. United States. Anthony Elonis of Pennsylvania claims that the Facebook rants he posted about his estranged wife and threatening to kill her were just rap lyrics. However, as MSNBC notes, he was convicted of making threats.
Elonis is asking the court to determine the how the government has to prove Internet rants are a “true threat,” which isn’t protected free speech. According to The Los Angeles Times, the question is, does a prosecutor have to prove that the Facebook poster really intended to follow through with the threat or will the prosecutor have to show that another person would genuinely believe that the rants are threatening violence.
Elonis is a former theme park owner who frequently posted threats on Facebook. Eventually, his estranged wife got a protective order and he then asked on Facebook if it was "thick enough to stop a bullet.”
He also threatened to kill the FBI agent who questioned him. In another post, he threatened to kill kindergartners. Then, he was arrested and convicted on charges of making threats. The judge believed that a reasonable person would believe that Elonis planned to follow through with the threats.
The ACLU and other free-speech groups are supporting Elonis. They argue that the government does have to prove that a person could actually follow through with threats posted on the web.
However, advocates for victims of domestic violence and other crimes are asking the court to take a strong stance against threatening words online.