Elonis v. United States

  On Monday, the Supreme Court heard the argument for Elonis v. United States. The issue at hand was whether a Pennsylvania man's conviction for making threats on Facebook should stand, his defense being that he was only "venting", a clear demonstration of his right to free speech. Thus, the question presented was whether conviction of threatening another person requires proof of that person's intent to threaten, or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening. Elonis argued that his conviction should lie in whether or not he personally intended to threaten someone.

The oral argument seemed to yield no results, leading to many questions and few answers. Justice Samuel A. Alito questioned Elonis' argument, pointing out that such a rule allows threats to be completely neutralized by simply adding the phrase "just kidding" at the end, or forming the threat itself into rap lyrics. He is quoted as saying that such a precedent "sounds like a road map for threatening people and getting away with it." Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with both standards, saying that there is little difference between the two; after all, inferring someone's state of mind from the words they said is the same as seeing what a "reasonable person" thinks of those words. The term "reasonable person" also came under dispute, since different situations might lead to different people being considered "reasonable" or "average.” For example, a reasonable adult and an equally reasonable teen might have completely different views on threats made by a teenager online.

Ultimately, the case is proving difficult, since any decision that the Justices make will have to ride a fine line between deterring useless, dangerous threats, and restricting our freedom of speech. In any case, the decision will not be known for at least several months.