U.S. Supreme Court to Determine If Threats Made Online Constitute a Crime

[c.d.]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-facebook-threats-free-speech-20141201-story.html

c.d.

[GUT]

G'day c.d.

Can't see how they can other than find that such threats CAN be a crime, might be circumstances where they're not, but 'd have thought that at the end of the day they have to find that, just like in threats made in other ways, each case depends on the facts.

[Ginger]

The standard, I believe, is whether a reasonable person would interpret the statement as a threat, which I think Elonis clearly met. They don't mention it in the article, but IIRC Elonis also was in the habit of posting 'disclaimers' with each of his rants stating that the first amendment protected his freedom to say such things, which to me rather clearly shows that he understood how other people would see these statements. There's a qualitative difference as well, I believe, between a rap song, however violent and offensive, where the rapper posits the rape and murder of some nameless (hopefully fictitious) woman, and similar statements made about a specific, real person with a relationship to the speaker.

To me, he seems very clearly guilty.

[GUT]

Does anyone know if they've given judgement on this one?

[Ginger]

Does anyone know if they've given judgement on this one?

It doesn't appear so. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx is where the latest opinions are published. Generally they'll announce judgement verbally in the morning, then later in the day post it here.

[GUT]

It doesn't appear so. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx is where the latest opinions are published. Generally they'll announce judgement verbally in the morning, then later in the day post it here.

Thanks Ginger, I couldn't find anything on the site, but suspected that there would be a delay in posting t, thought that there may have been some news reports.

However I can only see one outcome, even if they overturn the conviction, I suspect that at the end of the day they'll say it can be an offence and it will have to be judged on the facts.

[c.d.]

The article says that oral argument was on December 1st so I imagine it will take a few months. From the Court's website -- "They grant review in approximately 100 of the more than 10,000 petitions filed with the Court each term. No one knows exactly when a decision will be handed down by the Court in an argued case, nor is there a set time period in which the Justices must reach a decision. However, all cases argued during a term of Court are decided before the summer recess begins, usually by the end of June."

c.d.

[c.d.]

Speaking of threats and free speech, musician Ted Nugent got a visit from the Secret Service who told him to cool it with his comments about President Obama as they were very close to being construed as threats against the President.

c.d.

[GUT]

The article says that oral argument was on December 1st so I imagine it will take a few months. From the Court's website -- "They grant review in approximately 100 of the more than 10,000 petitions filed with the Court each term. No one knows exactly when a decision will be handed down by the Court in an argued case, nor is there a set time period in which the Justices must reach a decision. However, all cases argued during a term of Court are decided before the summer recess begins, usually by the end of June."

c.d.

Thanks c.d. I must have mis-read the original article I took t to be that they were about to hand down judgement, but i agree if it was heard 1 Dec then it could be a while.

[Ginger]

And Elonis actually got away with it: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/a-...e-1-decisions/

The last paragraph is interesting indeed: Roberts said the idea that wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal is, as Justice Jackson put it in Morissette, “as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil.”

I'm still of the opinion that Elonis was engaged in conscious wrongdoing, or at the very least trying to push as close as possible to the boundary. SCOTUS obviously didn't agree.

On the bright side, Roberts' reasoning may well prefigure the result of Texas Dep’t of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, also decided this session.