<span id="midArticle_start"/>(Adds reaction, background throughout)
<span id="midArticle_0"/>By Lawrence Hurley
<span id="midArticle_1"/> (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court onMonday threw out the conviction of a Pennsylvania man overthreatening statements he made on Facebook toward his estrangedwife, law enforcement officers and children in a case touchingupon the boundaries of free speech online.
<span id="midArticle_2"/>The court ruled on an 8-1 vote in favor of Anthony Elonis ina decision that could make it harder for people to be prosecutedfor outbursts on social media.
<span id="midArticle_3"/>Elonis served prison time for posting a series of statementson Facebook in 2010 after his wife left him. They are nowdivorced. Seven justices voted to throw out his conviction,while Justice Samuel Alito said he would have sent the case backto an appeals court to decide.
<span id="midArticle_4"/>"We're pleased that the Supreme Court saw the case for whatit was: an unprecedented criminal conviction for a 'crime' ofpure speech based on only a showing of negligence," said Elonis'lawyer, John Elwood.
<span id="midArticle_5"/>Elonis' Facebook posts, written in the form of rap lyrics,talked about killing his wife, knifing a female FBI agent andshooting schoolchildren. After a court granted his wife aprotective order against him, Elonis posted: "Is it thick enoughto stop a bullet?"
<span id="midArticle_6"/> <span class="first-article-divide"/>The justices ruled that in order to prosecute Elonis, it wasnot sufficient that a reasonable person would have interpretedhis remarks as threatening, but rather that Elonis had to haveintended the words as threats.
<span id="midArticle_7"/>"Federal criminal liability generally does not turn solelyon the results of an act without considering the defendant'smental state," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote of behalf of thecourt.
<span id="midArticle_8"/>The case touched upon the rise of social media and howpeople use it to express strongly held feelings. But the court'slegal reasoning did not rest on free speech. Instead, the courtheld that Elonis needed to be aware of the threatening nature ofhis communication in order to be convicted. Lower courts hadsaid he could be held responsible regardless of whether hebelieved his messages could be viewed as threatening.
<span id="midArticle_9"/>"Today's decision properly recognizes that the law has forcenturies required the government to prove criminal intentbefore putting someone in jail," said Steven Shapiro, nationallegal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed court papers in support of Elonis.
<span id="midArticle_10"/> <span class="second-article-divide"/>"That principle is especially important when a prosecutionis based on a defendant's words. The Internet does not changethis long-standing rule," Shapiro added.
<span id="midArticle_11"/>Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal JusticeLegal Foundation, which filed court papers siding againstElonis, expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying thatbecause of areas left unresolved by the justices "it is possiblethat people who should be convicted might be acquitted."
<span id="midArticle_12"/>Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court whowould have upheld the conviction outright. He criticized thecourt's reasoning, saying it "throws everyone from appellatejudges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty."
<span id="midArticle_13"/> <span class="third-article-divide"/>Elonis' lawyers argued his statements were little differentfrom lyrics by performers like rapper Eminem. Elonis contendedhis remarks were meant as art or a form of therapy.
<span id="midArticle_14"/>Another of the Facebook posts by Elonis recounted a visit byan FBI agent in which he imagined murdering her: "Pull my knife,flick my wrist, and slit her throat/ Leave her bleedin' from herjugular in the arms of her partner."
<span id="midArticle_15"/>The Justice Department had argued that to bring a caseprosecutors need only prove that statements could be interpretedas a threat by a reasonable person.
<span id="midArticle_0"/>Alito partially disagreed with the outcome, saying theappeals court should be given another opportunity to decidewhether the conviction could be upheld.
<span id="midArticle_1"/>Elonis was convicted of violating a federal law that outlawssending a threatening communication and was sentenced to 44months in prison. Last year, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
<span id="midArticle_2"/>The case is Elonis v. USA, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-983. (Editing by Will Dunham)
<span id="midArticle_3"/>
<span id="midArticle_0"/>By Lawrence Hurley
<span id="midArticle_1"/> (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court onMonday threw out the conviction of a Pennsylvania man overthreatening statements he made on Facebook toward his estrangedwife, law enforcement officers and children in a case touchingupon the boundaries of free speech online.
<span id="midArticle_2"/>The court ruled on an 8-1 vote in favor of Anthony Elonis ina decision that could make it harder for people to be prosecutedfor outbursts on social media.
<span id="midArticle_3"/>Elonis served prison time for posting a series of statementson Facebook in 2010 after his wife left him. They are nowdivorced. Seven justices voted to throw out his conviction,while Justice Samuel Alito said he would have sent the case backto an appeals court to decide.
<span id="midArticle_4"/>"We're pleased that the Supreme Court saw the case for whatit was: an unprecedented criminal conviction for a 'crime' ofpure speech based on only a showing of negligence," said Elonis'lawyer, John Elwood.
<span id="midArticle_5"/>Elonis' Facebook posts, written in the form of rap lyrics,talked about killing his wife, knifing a female FBI agent andshooting schoolchildren. After a court granted his wife aprotective order against him, Elonis posted: "Is it thick enoughto stop a bullet?"
<span id="midArticle_6"/> <span class="first-article-divide"/>The justices ruled that in order to prosecute Elonis, it wasnot sufficient that a reasonable person would have interpretedhis remarks as threatening, but rather that Elonis had to haveintended the words as threats.
<span id="midArticle_7"/>"Federal criminal liability generally does not turn solelyon the results of an act without considering the defendant'smental state," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote of behalf of thecourt.
<span id="midArticle_8"/>The case touched upon the rise of social media and howpeople use it to express strongly held feelings. But the court'slegal reasoning did not rest on free speech. Instead, the courtheld that Elonis needed to be aware of the threatening nature ofhis communication in order to be convicted. Lower courts hadsaid he could be held responsible regardless of whether hebelieved his messages could be viewed as threatening.
<span id="midArticle_9"/>"Today's decision properly recognizes that the law has forcenturies required the government to prove criminal intentbefore putting someone in jail," said Steven Shapiro, nationallegal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed court papers in support of Elonis.
<span id="midArticle_10"/> <span class="second-article-divide"/>"That principle is especially important when a prosecutionis based on a defendant's words. The Internet does not changethis long-standing rule," Shapiro added.
<span id="midArticle_11"/>Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal JusticeLegal Foundation, which filed court papers siding againstElonis, expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying thatbecause of areas left unresolved by the justices "it is possiblethat people who should be convicted might be acquitted."
<span id="midArticle_12"/>Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court whowould have upheld the conviction outright. He criticized thecourt's reasoning, saying it "throws everyone from appellatejudges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty."
<span id="midArticle_13"/> <span class="third-article-divide"/>Elonis' lawyers argued his statements were little differentfrom lyrics by performers like rapper Eminem. Elonis contendedhis remarks were meant as art or a form of therapy.
<span id="midArticle_14"/>Another of the Facebook posts by Elonis recounted a visit byan FBI agent in which he imagined murdering her: "Pull my knife,flick my wrist, and slit her throat/ Leave her bleedin' from herjugular in the arms of her partner."
<span id="midArticle_15"/>The Justice Department had argued that to bring a caseprosecutors need only prove that statements could be interpretedas a threat by a reasonable person.
<span id="midArticle_0"/>Alito partially disagreed with the outcome, saying theappeals court should be given another opportunity to decidewhether the conviction could be upheld.
<span id="midArticle_1"/>Elonis was convicted of violating a federal law that outlawssending a threatening communication and was sentenced to 44months in prison. Last year, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
<span id="midArticle_2"/>The case is Elonis v. USA, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-983. (Editing by Will Dunham)
<span id="midArticle_3"/>
via Smart Health Shop Forum http://ift.tt/1I67Qxn
No comments:
Post a Comment