<b><i>BREAKING NEWS:</b></i> Justices Sidestep First Amendment Ruling in Facebook Threats Case

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 1 sided with a Pennsylvania man whose angry Facebook postings directed at his estranged wife landed him in jail for violating a federal law against communicating threats.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.,'writing for a 7-2 majority'in'Elonis v. United States, said the government needed to prove more than the defendant was negligent or that a reasonable person would regard the statements as a threat.

The “reasonable person” standard, Roberts wrote, is “inconsistent with the conventional requirement for criminal conduct'awareness of some wrongdoing.” As a result, he concluded, “[Anthony] Elonis' conviction cannot stand.”

But the court announced no new First Amendment rule in the case, explicitly sidestepping what some were hoping would be decision that would give guidance in disputes over the wide range of language uses in social media.

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. concurred in part and dissented in part, while Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate dissent. Thomas asserted that the court majority failed to articulate a clear standard in place of negligence, which he said “throws everyone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty.”

Elonis began posting angry prose on Facebook in 2010 after his wife left him. He often said he was joking, and sometimes his postings read like legal analysis. 'Did you know that it's illegal to say I want to kill my wife?' he wrote.

After his wife obtained a protection order, Elonis' postings turned darker. “Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class,” he wrote, and in another post said he came close to killing an FBI agent who came to his house. Elonis was arrested and convicted on charges of violating the federal law against threats.'He served a 44-month prison term and was released in February 2014. He was'arrested'erlier this year on an unrelated assault charge and remains jailed.

Lawyers for Elonis claim he was convicted under the wrong legal standard. All the judge required the government to prove at trial was that his words could be viewed by a “reasonable person” as a true threat'regardless of whether Elonis actually intended them that way.

John Elwood of Vinson & Elkins,'arguing for Elonis, made a First Amendment argument that the level of proof should be higher, to protect legitimate speech. The government should be required to prove the speaker's intention to threaten, he argued. 'Under the government standard, any sort of speech that uses ' forceful language or violent rhetoric could potentially be at risk,' Elwood said at oral argument December 1.

Elonis' local lawyer, Ronald Levine, a principal at Post & Schell in Philadelphia, said in a statement: 'This is an important victory, not only for Mr. Elonis but for others in danger of losing their freedom over words they uttered. We are pleased with this result.'

'

Tony Mauro'covers trhe U.S Supreme Court for ALM Media.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 1 sided with a Pennsylvania man whose angry Facebook postings directed at his estranged wife landed him in jail for violating a federal law against communicating threats.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.,'writing for a 7-2 majority'in'Elonis v. United States, said the government needed to prove more than the defendant was negligent or that a reasonable person would regard the statements as a threat.

The “reasonable person” standard, Roberts wrote, is “inconsistent with the conventional requirement for criminal conduct'awareness of some wrongdoing.” As a result, he concluded, “[Anthony] Elonis' conviction cannot stand.”

But the court announced no new First Amendment rule in the case, explicitly sidestepping what some were hoping would be decision that would give guidance in disputes over the wide range of language uses in social media.

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. concurred in part and dissented in part, while Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate dissent. Thomas asserted that the court majority failed to articulate a clear standard in place of negligence, which he said “throws everyone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty.”

Elonis began posting angry prose on Facebook in 2010 after his wife left him. He often said he was joking, and sometimes his postings read like legal analysis. 'Did you know that it's illegal to say I want to kill my wife?' he wrote.

After his wife obtained a protection order, Elonis' postings turned darker. “Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class,” he wrote, and in another post said he came close to killing an FBI agent who came to his house. Elonis was arrested and convicted on charges of violating the federal law against threats.'He served a 44-month prison term and was released in February 2014. He was'arrested'erlier this year on an unrelated assault charge and remains jailed.

Lawyers for Elonis claim he was convicted under the wrong legal standard. All the judge required the government to prove at trial was that his words could be viewed by a “reasonable person” as a true threat'regardless of whether Elonis actually intended them that way.

John Elwood of Vinson & Elkins,'arguing for Elonis, made a First Amendment argument that the level of proof should be higher, to protect legitimate speech. The government should be required to prove the speaker's intention to threaten, he argued. 'Under the government standard, any sort of speech that uses ' forceful language or violent rhetoric could potentially be at risk,' Elwood said at oral argument December 1.

Elonis' local lawyer, Ronald Levine, a principal at Post & Schell in Philadelphia, said in a statement: 'This is an important victory, not only for Mr. Elonis but for others in danger of losing their freedom over words they uttered. We are pleased with this result.'

'

Tony Mauro'covers trhe U.S Supreme Court for ALM Media.