Does death threat constitute free speech? U.S Supreme Court to consider the limits of First Amendment protections on free speech, on social media

The US Supreme Court will consider a groundbreaking case on Monday about whether death threats posted on Facebook are liable to prosecution or whether threatening comments are protected by constitutional rights to free speech.

It will be the first time the top court's nine justices will consider the limits of First Amendment protections on free speech on social media

 

The case involves Anthony Elonis, a rap music enthusiast who posted angry lyrics on his Facebook page aimed at his wife after she left him, taking their two children. His wife told police she was "extremely scared" and obtained a "protection from abuse" (PFA) order forbidding Elonis from getting near her. 

But that only provoked him further. His abusive language extended beyond his broken marriage. After an FBI agent visited him, he said he would blow the agent up, then threatened an amusement park he had been fired from and posted about shooting up nearby schools. 

He said there were "enough elementary schools in a 10-mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined."

He was arrested and charged with communicating threats in interstate commerce, on the Internet. At the trial, Elonis argued that he posted the messages "without a specific intent" to kill, and said writing the lyrics made him feel better after the split.

But a jury did not agree, and Elonis was sentenced to three and a half years (44 months) in prison and three years of supervised release. An appeals court later upheld the conviction.

The case could have repercussions on violence and harassment on the Internet and how the First Amendment -- which protects freedom of speech -- applies in the realm of social media.

The Supreme Court will decide whether Elonis's comments constitute a "true threat," or were harmless because he did not intend to act on his words, as he argued. 

US law defines threats as "statements that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of intent to do harm."

The government argues that "a bomb threat that appears to be serious is equally harmful regardless of the speaker's private state of mind."

Several anti-domestic violence groups have weighed in with briefs in support of the government's position as the case comes up before the Supreme Court.

Elonis, meanwhile, contends that his conviction would impact many artists, including singers, writers and cartoonists, who express themselves creatively.

The court has considered cases involving new technologies, including GPS, mobile phones and video games, but has never ruled on freedom of speech rights on social media.