Social media sites have become a popular avenue for expressing one's opinions, thoughts and emotions. They have also become venues for trolls and bashers to express themselves and hide behind the freedom of expression.
But the closely anticipated ruling for the case of Elonis v. United States (13-983) regarding his violent Facebook posts has opened up the discussion and awareness to the public of the need to regulate how we express ourselves online especially when it comes to hateful and violent expressions.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Monday to overturn the conviction of the Lower Courts against Anthony Elonis from Pennyslvania. Elonis was convicted and held responsible for multiple violations of a federal law that outlaws sending threatening communications regardless of whether or not he believed his messages could be perceived as threatening in any way.
The statute is intended to prevent speakers from intimidating or terrorizing others through spoken or written words. However it does not give federal prosecutors license to ignore protections of the First Amendment and punish all speech that listeners or readers might consider threatening or intimidating.
Elonis's violent and derogatory Facebook posts regarding his ex-wife, previous co-workers and the FBI agent who previously visited his home in regards to another concerning Facebook post about doing harm in a kindergarten school were interpreted as real threats.
One of Elonis's post on Facebook meant for his wife stated, "There's one way to love ya but a thousand ways to kill ya. And I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts..."
Elonis and his lawyer argued that he was simply letting off steam and creatively expressing himself through the "rap lyrics" he created and posted as a means of therapy to deal with his grief regarding his separation with his wife and the loss of custody of their children as well as being let go from his job. Elonis's defense was that the court needed to take into consideration his intent.
The Supreme Court had agreed in part to this defense stating that prosecutors needed to prove that the defendant had the intention for his messages to be construed as real threats.
According to Chief Justice John Roberts, "Elonis's conviction cannot stand. The jury was instructed that the government need prove only that a reasonable person would regard Elonis's communications as threats, and that was error. Federal criminal liability generally does not turn solely on the results of an act without considering the defendant's mental state."
The majority of the justices decided Elonis could not be convicted purely on the basis that a reasonable person might consider his comments threatening in any way. The court instead said prosecution would be allowed under the federal law that he was originally accused of breaking and only if Elonis himself intended his words as threats.
"We're pleased that the Supreme Court saw the case for what it was: an unprecedented criminal conviction for a 'crime' of pure speech based on only a showing of negligence," John Elwood, Elonis' lawyer stated.
The Elonis v United States case was being closely followed by many as a potential forerunner of criminal enforcement for offensive speech on Facebook and other social networking platforms. This also offered the Supreme Court a prospect to better identify when the government can prosecute someone for something they say or post online.
Disappointingly, rather than tackling the aspects of free speech protection in regards to online platforms, the Supreme Court instead issued a ruling nullifying Elonis conviction and offered little advice for other and future cases.
Justice Samuel Alito, a former federal prosecutor said, "the court's move is certain to cause confusion and serious problems among lawyers and lower courts, which would be "left to guess" on how to proceed with similar cases."
While Justice Clarence Thomas stated that "the court left nothing in place and that its indecision throws everyone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty."
Mai Fernandez, The National Center for Victims of Crime executive Director, which filed court papers against Elonis, said, "The laws governing social media require swift interpretation to keep pace with the ever-advancing criminal activity in this space. The justices today missed the opportunity to define the law and left the victims of this case and others in jeopardy."
While on the other spectrum, Steven Shapiro, National Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union advocates praised the Supreme Courts ruling.
"Today's decision properly recognizes that the law has for centuries required the government to prove criminal intent before putting someone in jail. That principle is especially important when a prosecution is based on a defendant's words. The Internet does not change this long-standing rule."
Anthony Elonis is currently in jail after being arrested on unrelated assault charges after throwing a pot at a woman.
Be sure to follow T-Lounge on Twitter and visit our Facebook page.
