Supreme Court rules Facebook threats as 'free speech' unless there's intent

[MechAg94]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/06/02/supreme-court-rules-facebook-threats-as-free-speech-unless-there-intent/

Looks like it stemmed from a rapper posting lyirics that talked about violence against his ex-girlfriend or wife.  Apparently, everyone thought it was serious except him.  I think the SC ruled that intent needs to be proven for criminal charges to apply.  I guess online threats are free speech and something about the proper mental state to carry it over to criminal charges. 

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/?wpmp_switcher=desktop

Justice Thomas’s dissent also argued that lower courts were left “to guess at the appropriate mental state” required for conviction under that law.  The Court, he added, cast aside the approach taken by nine federal appeals courts “and leaves nothing in its place.”

Seems like an odd ruling.  They didn't want to see the guy prosecuted, but couldn't articulate why?  The idea that threats are free speech is odd to me.  I don't really like it being a federal crime, but where does making threats cross the line from free speech to criminal behavior?

[roo_ster]

I don't really like it being a federal crime, but where does making threats cross the line from free speech to criminal behavior?

Looks like SCOTUS  thinks the line is at intent.  I might add capability.

[Stand_watie]

Looks like SCOTUS  thinks the line is at intent.  I might add capability.

Volohk has a more nuanced view on the ruling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/01/the-supreme-court-doesnt-decide-when-speech-becomes-a-constitutionally-unprotected-true-threat/

"...I'm gonna tie you to the bed and set the house on fire..." can mean entirely different things to two different eminem listeners. I guess now they have to prove more than just he actually said it.

[T.O.M.]

Looks like they have ruled with respect to specific federal statute, and decided that the mens rea requirement applies to threat, and not the communication.  Makes sense to me.  Personally, I don't care for strict liability statutes, as they oftenmake it too easy for the state to convict people for acts that truly were not criminal.  Take a statute like Vandalism, which prohibits knowingly causing damages to another's prerty without consent.  Without the intent requirement, an accident becomes a criminal offense.