# Making threats online may not be covered by free speech protection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/making-threats-online-may-not-be-covered-by-free-speech-protection/706065 "2014-12-01T20:54:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/making-threats-online-may-not-be-covered-by-free-speech-protection/706065/1 "2014-12-01T20:54:55Z")
Today the SCOTUS heard arguments regarding the case [Elonis v. United States](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/) in which a man is being accused of criminally threatening his estranged wife via posts to Facebook. At issue is whether the threats constituted a “true threat” or not. The US is arguing that if a “reasonable person” would deem it a threat than it is. Elonis’ defense wants it to be if Elonis intended it as a threat and knew it. It seems the court is more amenable to the government’s case (although with these things it is hard to tell…see link below to SCOTUS Blog). Certainly there is a lot of trouble defining what should and should not be considered a criminal threat posted online (for instance the government’s lawyer distinguished rap lyrics as “entertainment” not worthy of prosecuting). Even so who decides what constitutes a legitimate threat? > [@](#): > > The gaping distance between those two positions led the Court to explore intermediate possibilities — whether “purpose” should count, ” whether “knowledge” was enough, whether mere “recklessness” would suffice. If that were not challenging enough, the Court struggled to figure out, if they opted for a “reasonable person” to test the meaning of menacing words, exactly who that would be. Would it be necessary to use a teenager addicted to the Internet to judge a teenager who sent a message with threats included? Who would judge whether a rant was only a rap, as in rap music with violent lyrics? > > SOURCE: [Argument analysis: Taking ownership of an Internet rant - SCOTUSblog](http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/argument-analysis-taking-ownership-of-an-internet-rant/) I admit to being on the fence on this one although I lean towards the free speech side in defense of the husband in this case. Not because I approve in any way the things he said (I don’t) but rather I find the notion of a court deciding what speech is ok in this case to be fraught with problems that are not easily remedied and would have a chilling effect on speech overall. On the flip side some people find the internet a great place to unload and make vile threats and I do wish there were some repercussions for that. I just can’t see how the court could enforce that in a reasonable way. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/making-threats-online-may-not-be-covered-by-free-speech-protection/706065/2 "2014-12-01T21:23:32Z")
Well, if nothing else, _Elonis_ might set the legal standard for “I’m not touching you!” passive aggression.