US Supreme Court to hear internet freedom of speech case

SCOTUS is going to be hearing Elonis v U.S. This case will require the justices to define what the limits of freedom of speech are when using the internet in the USA.

The Wall Street Journal explains the details of the case in question.

The court said it would consider an appeal from a Pennsylvania man convicted of making threats on Facebook against his estranged wife, law enforcement and local elementary schools.

After his wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order, defendant Anthony Elonis took to Facebook and wrote on his page, “Fold up your PFA and put it in your pocket Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?”

In another post, Mr. Elonis wrote, “Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined.” And after an FBI agent visited his residence, Mr. Elonis said that law-enforcement officers should bring an explosives expert on their next visit, “Cause little did y’all know, I was strapped wit’ a bomb.”

Note that under US Federal law companies such as Facebook aren’t liable for comments posted by users. Facebook according to the Wall Street Journal though is naturally following the case closely.

However, in its published “community standards,” Facebook says that “we remove content and may escalate to law enforcement when we perceive a genuine risk of physical harm or a direct threat to public safety. You may not credibly threaten others, or organize acts of real-world violence.”

At the very least the statements posted on Facebook by Elonis were extremely foolish. SCOTUS is expected to rule on the case in June 2015.

[UPDATE 12.59pm] There is additional reporting on the background of the case here that gives also gives background about the issue of what is known as a ‘true threat’.

The last time the high court scrutinized the “true threat” doctrine was in 2003, when it found that a Virginia law banning cross burning was unconstitutional because a “true threat” requires the speaker to communicate an intent to commit violence. (Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.) In that case, the court defined true threats as “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.”

So the key question may well be for SCOTUS is what is the relationship between a ‘true threat’ and modern technology (ie. the internet)?