Violent threats on Facebook may be OK, justices rule

[IDemo]

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court struck another blow for free speech Monday, ruling that threats made over the Internet are protected unless they are intentionally malevolent.

The decision was a temporary victory for Anthony Elonis and those like him whose threatening words on Facebook or similar social media sites may instill fear in their targets. It was a defeat for the government and groups that defend victims of domestic violence.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision for a near-unanimous court. It was based on the court's interpretation of a federal statute, rather than under the First Amendment.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, and Justice Samuel Alito dissented in part.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/01/supreme-court-facebook-threat/23901307/

[groundloop]

1. Incomplete headline.... case is being returned to lower court for further action

From the article:



"If the (lower) court rules that his posts were intentionally or recklessly threatening, his conviction would stand."

[Fred Sanders]

2. Actual law and procedure is complicated and pondering....headlines demand simplicity and pithiness...sad state

of affairs in the media when they intentionally demote the most important parts to get to the sensationalist parts.

[Zight]

4. What did the jury intructions say?

Do you know?

[BumRushDaShow]

3. They apparently changed the headline now

"Supreme Court gives Facebook 'rapper' second chance in threat case"

Seems to tilt a fraction (the "second chance" bit) towards the actual decision I suppose.

[Zight]

5. His stuff never rhymed

Could it be that he was pretending to rap, after getting in trouble?

[LanternWaste]

7. I think you're discounting 'rich rhymes', 'mirror rhymes', 'virtual rhymes', etc....

I think you're discounting 'rich rhymes', 'mirror rhymes', 'virtual rhymes', etc., in addition to basic assonance and consonance.

Which can often happen when one speaks of language structures they know little of.

Pretense, indeed.

[bluestateguy]

6. Clarence Thomas is not worth taking seriously

I don't know what did or didn't happen with Anita Hill, but there is beyond enough reason for him not to be on the court given his intellectually lightweight presence.

He most likely does not read the briefs, doesn't listen to the oral arguments, and has not so much as asked a question during proceedings since 2006. He's like a slacker student that comes to class every day having not done the reading, doesn't participate in class and BS's his way through when he has to.