US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Man Writing Threatening Facebook Posts

The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the US government cannot convict a person of threatening another individual solely on the basis of how their message is perceived by others.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The US government cannot convict a person of threatening another individual solely on the basis of how their message is perceived by others, the US Supreme Court ruled on Monday in the case Elonis vs. United States.

“The jury was instructed that the government need prove only that a reasonable person would regard Elonis’s communications as threats, and that was an error,” the Supreme Court ruling stated.

On September 19, 2013, the Third Circuit court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, convicted Elonis of issuing threats on Facebook to his ex-wife, a kindergarten and US law enforcement authorities.

The jury convicted Elonis based on instructions that a “reasonable person” would perceive the writings as threats. Elonis argued the definition of the word “threat” meant the intent to do harm.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that in criminal trials, the instruction requiring only negligence with respect to the communication of a threat “is not sufficient to support a conviction.”

Elonis, who had changed his Facebook to a pseudonym, claimed the threatening writings were therapeutic, and disclaimers to his Facebook posts stated they were fictional and artistic.

The Supreme Court did not address freedom of expression issues arising from the First Amendment to the Constitution, as such issues were not a part of the legal challenge.

Elonis’s case will now go back to the lower court for review.