<span id="midArticle_start"/>(Recasts lead, adds Elonis in jail on unrelated charge, freshreaction)
<span id="midArticle_0"/>By Lawrence Hurley
<span id="midArticle_1"/>WASHINGTON, June 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court onMonday threw out the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who madethreatening Facebook statements toward his estranged wife andothers in a ruling that makes it tougher to prosecute people forusing menacing language on social media.
<span id="midArticle_2"/>The court ruled 8-1 in favor of Anthony Elonis in a casethat explored the boundaries of free speech online.
<span id="midArticle_3"/>The justices decided Elonis could not be convicted merely onthe basis that a reasonable person might consider his commentsthreatening. The court instead said prosecution would be allowedunder the federal law that he was accused of breaking only ifElonis himself intended his words as threats.
<span id="midArticle_4"/>Elonis wrote the Facebook posts in 2010, when he was27, after his wife left him. Written in the form of rap lyrics,he fantasized about killing her, 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_5"/>They are now divorced.
<span id="midArticle_6"/>Seven justices voted to throw out his conviction, whileJustice Samuel Alito said he would have sent the case back to anappeals court to decide.
<span id="midArticle_7"/>"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_8"/>Elonis is back in jail in Pennsylvania on unrelated assaultcharges. Local media reported he was arrested after throwing apot at a woman.
<span id="midArticle_9"/> <span class="first-article-divide"/>The case touched upon the rise of social media and howpeople use it to express strongly held feelings.
<span id="midArticle_10"/>Elonis' lawyers argued his statements were little differentfrom lyrics by performers like rapper Eminem and were meant asart or a form of therapy.
<span id="midArticle_11"/>Another of his Facebook posts recounted a visit by an FBIagent in which he imagined murdering her: "Pull my knife, flickmy wrist, and slit her throat/ Leave her bleedin' from herjugular in the arms of her partner."
<span id="midArticle_12"/>The court's legal reasoning did not rest on free speech,instead focusing on Elonis' intent.
<span id="midArticle_13"/> <span class="second-article-divide"/>"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_14"/>Lower courts had said Elonis could be held responsibleregardless of whether he believed his messages could be viewedas threatening.
<span id="midArticle_15"/><span id="midArticle_0"/>'LEFT TO GUESS'
<span id="midArticle_1"/>In a separate opinion concurring in the judgment but not therationale, Alito criticized the majority's legal reasoning,saying "attorneys and judges are left to guess" what level ofintent is required for a conviction to stick.
<span id="midArticle_2"/> <span class="third-article-divide"/>Justice Clarence Thomas was the only justice who would haveupheld the conviction outright. Thomas said the decision "throwseveryone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into astate of uncertainty."
<span id="midArticle_3"/>The National Center for Victims of Crime, which filed courtpapers siding against Elonis, said the ruling will sow confusion.
<span id="midArticle_4"/>"The laws governing social media require swiftinterpretation to keep pace with the ever-advancing criminalactivity in this space. The justices today missed theopportunity to define the law and left the victims of this caseand others in jeopardy," said Mai Fernandez, the group'sexecutive director.
<span id="midArticle_5"/>Civil liberties advocates praised the ruling.
<span id="midArticle_6"/>"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 backing Elonis.
<span id="midArticle_7"/>"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_8"/>Elonis was convicted of violating a federal law that outlawssending a threatening communication and was sentenced to 44months in prison. In 2013, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
<span id="midArticle_9"/>The case is Elonis v. USA, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-983. (Editing by Will Dunham)
<span id="midArticle_10"/>
<span id="midArticle_0"/>By Lawrence Hurley
<span id="midArticle_1"/>WASHINGTON, June 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court onMonday threw out the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who madethreatening Facebook statements toward his estranged wife andothers in a ruling that makes it tougher to prosecute people forusing menacing language on social media.
<span id="midArticle_2"/>The court ruled 8-1 in favor of Anthony Elonis in a casethat explored the boundaries of free speech online.
<span id="midArticle_3"/>The justices decided Elonis could not be convicted merely onthe basis that a reasonable person might consider his commentsthreatening. The court instead said prosecution would be allowedunder the federal law that he was accused of breaking only ifElonis himself intended his words as threats.
<span id="midArticle_4"/>Elonis wrote the Facebook posts in 2010, when he was27, after his wife left him. Written in the form of rap lyrics,he fantasized about killing her, 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_5"/>They are now divorced.
<span id="midArticle_6"/>Seven justices voted to throw out his conviction, whileJustice Samuel Alito said he would have sent the case back to anappeals court to decide.
<span id="midArticle_7"/>"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_8"/>Elonis is back in jail in Pennsylvania on unrelated assaultcharges. Local media reported he was arrested after throwing apot at a woman.
<span id="midArticle_9"/> <span class="first-article-divide"/>The case touched upon the rise of social media and howpeople use it to express strongly held feelings.
<span id="midArticle_10"/>Elonis' lawyers argued his statements were little differentfrom lyrics by performers like rapper Eminem and were meant asart or a form of therapy.
<span id="midArticle_11"/>Another of his Facebook posts recounted a visit by an FBIagent in which he imagined murdering her: "Pull my knife, flickmy wrist, and slit her throat/ Leave her bleedin' from herjugular in the arms of her partner."
<span id="midArticle_12"/>The court's legal reasoning did not rest on free speech,instead focusing on Elonis' intent.
<span id="midArticle_13"/> <span class="second-article-divide"/>"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_14"/>Lower courts had said Elonis could be held responsibleregardless of whether he believed his messages could be viewedas threatening.
<span id="midArticle_15"/><span id="midArticle_0"/>'LEFT TO GUESS'
<span id="midArticle_1"/>In a separate opinion concurring in the judgment but not therationale, Alito criticized the majority's legal reasoning,saying "attorneys and judges are left to guess" what level ofintent is required for a conviction to stick.
<span id="midArticle_2"/> <span class="third-article-divide"/>Justice Clarence Thomas was the only justice who would haveupheld the conviction outright. Thomas said the decision "throwseveryone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into astate of uncertainty."
<span id="midArticle_3"/>The National Center for Victims of Crime, which filed courtpapers siding against Elonis, said the ruling will sow confusion.
<span id="midArticle_4"/>"The laws governing social media require swiftinterpretation to keep pace with the ever-advancing criminalactivity in this space. The justices today missed theopportunity to define the law and left the victims of this caseand others in jeopardy," said Mai Fernandez, the group'sexecutive director.
<span id="midArticle_5"/>Civil liberties advocates praised the ruling.
<span id="midArticle_6"/>"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 backing Elonis.
<span id="midArticle_7"/>"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_8"/>Elonis was convicted of violating a federal law that outlawssending a threatening communication and was sentenced to 44months in prison. In 2013, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
<span id="midArticle_9"/>The case is Elonis v. USA, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-983. (Editing by Will Dunham)
<span id="midArticle_10"/>
via Smart Health Shop Forum http://ift.tt/1FZnHOI
No comments:
Post a Comment