Court focuses on intention behind Facebook posts
Ruling favors man who ranted online
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court made it harder Monday to punish people who post threatening comments online, ruling that prosecutors must show the sender knew what he or she was doing and intended to threaten someone.
Before, most judges had said people can be prosecuted for sending threats online if a “reasonable person” reading the words would think they conveyed a true threat.
But in a case involving hostile comments made on Facebook, the high court rejected that view Monday and decided people cannot be convicted of the crime of sending threats unless they were aware that they were doing wrong.
The court’s opinion rested on a subtle point of criminal law and said nothing about the First Amend- ment. But it is likely to shield people who rant online or muse darkly about carrying out violent acts.
It is a setback for victims of domestic violence, who say prosecutors need more leeway to go after ex-spouses, boyfriends and others who post specific threats on the Internet.
By an 8-1 vote, the justices reversed the conviction of Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man who posted on Facebook what he called “therapeutic” rants about his estranged wife.
“Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife?” he asked in one posting. In another, he wrote he would “not rest until your body is a mess, sealed in blood and dying from all the little cuts.”
Federal law makes it a crime to transmit “any threat” to “injure” another person. Elonis was prosecuted, convicted by a jury and sent to prison for three years and eight months.
When the Supreme Court took up his appeal in Elonis v. United States, First Amendment advocates hoped for a broad ruling that would strengthen free speech on the Internet.
Chief Justice John Roberts, however, said the court decided to focus on a historic principle of criminal law. Before someone can be convicted of a crime, they should be aware that what they were doing was wrong.
In this instance, Elonis seemed to believe his writings were like “rap lyrics,” protected as free speech.
Roberts said it was an error for the judge to let the jury convict Elonis without proof he was aware his rantings were true threats, saying a defendant can be convicted if he “transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat or with the knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat.”
While agreeing with the outcome, Justice Samuel Alito faulted Roberts and his colleagues for handing down a ruling that decides very little.
“This case is certain to cause confusion and serious problems,” Alito wrote. Rather than clarify what must be proved to win a conviction, “attorneys and judges are left to guess.”
In dissent, Justice Clar- ence Thomas said that Elonis’ “general intent” was clear and that his conviction should have been upheld. He also faulted the court for issuing a hazy opinion. “Our job is to decide questions, not create them,” he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union’s Legal Director Steven Shapiro praised the ruling.
It “properly recognizes that the law for centuries required the government to prove criminal i ntent putting someone in jail,” he said.