The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about free speech and social media. They will determine how sites like Facebook fit into the free speech debate in the digital age. More specifically, when threatening comments on social media sites become criminal behavior.
Two federal courts have already ruled that it was unlawful of Anthony Elonis to make comments about killing his wife, an FBI agent, and others on Facebook in 2010. Mr. Elonis states that his posts were merely rap lyrics and a way for him to vent his frustration without actually committing the acts. His ex-wife was extremely afraid for herself and her children.
A major issue being clarified in this case is something called “true threats.” These threats are illegal (not protected under the First Amendment) if a reasonable person could look at the post and consider them to be threatening. Hopefully the high court will clarify on the role of speaker’s intent vs listener’s reaction and how social plays a role.
The last Supreme Court case that dealt with the true threat doctrine was in response to a Virginia law that found cross burning was unconstitutional. The high court ruled that a true threats are “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Since this decision, lower courts have gone back and forth with the debate on intent of the speaker vs evaluation by the listener. The Justice Department has taken the stance that the law must not only prevent real violence by also deter real fear.
There is an ongoing debate on the role of social media and how it fits in to the lives of everyday people. Does a Facebook post that can be seen by the public still count as personal reflection? Does context of the statement carry any weight if a reader interprets the statements negatively? Should comments made on social media be treated differently than other forms of speech? These questions should be answered by the Justices of the Supreme Court When Do Facebook Posts Become Criminal Behavior?
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about free speech and social media. They will determine how sites like Facebook fit into the free speech debate in the digital age. More specifically, when threatening comments on social media sites become criminal behavior.
Two federal courts have already ruled that it was unlawful of Anthony Elonis to make comments about killing his wife, an FBI agent, and others on Facebook in 2010. Mr. Elonis states that his posts were merely rap lyrics and a way for him to vent his frustration without actually committing the acts. His ex-wife was extremely afraid for herself and her children.
A major issue being clarified in this case is something called “true threats.” These threats are illegal (not protected under the First Amendment) if a reasonable person could look at the post and consider them to be threatening. Hopefully, the high court will clarify the role of the speaker’s intent vs the listener’s reaction and how society plays a role.
The last Supreme Court case that dealt with the true threat doctrine was in response to a Virginia law that found cross-burning unconstitutional. The high court ruled that true threats are “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Since this decision, lower courts have gone back and forth with the debate on the speaker’s intent vs evaluation by the listener. The Justice Department has taken the stance that the law must not only prevent real violence by also deter real fear.
There is an ongoing debate on the role of social media and how it fits into the lives of everyday people. Does a Facebook post that the public can see still count as a personal reflection? Does the statement’s context carry any weight if a reader interprets the statement negatively? Should comments made on social media be treated differently than other forms of speech? These questions should be answered by the Justices of the Supreme Court
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case regarding free speech on social media is a crucial step in navigating the complex intersection of digital communication and legal boundaries. The case involving Anthony Elonis highlights the challenge of distinguishing between genuine threats and expressions of frustration or artistic intent online. The concept of “true threats” is central to this legal debate, where the court must weigh the speaker’s intent against the potential impact on the listener. As the Supreme Court revisits this issue, it provides an opportunity to establish clearer guidelines for evaluating the role of social media in free speech, considering questions of context, public visibility, and the unique dynamics of online communication.
Furthermore, this case is not just about the legal definition of true threats but also delves into the broader societal debate about the role of social media in our lives. The justices are tasked with addressing fundamental questions about the nature of online expression, the public visibility of posts, and whether statements made on platforms like Facebook should be treated differently from traditional forms of speech. As technology continues to reshape how individuals communicate, the Supreme Court’s decision, in this case, holds the potential to set a precedent and establish a framework that balances the protection of free speech with the need to prevent genuine harm and fear in the digital age.
Do you have further questions or concerns? Call us or contact the attorneys at Thomas & Ahnell, LLC, and we will be happy to help.