After hearing arguments in one of the most intriguing cases of the year, several Supreme Court justices expressed uncertainty in how to proceed.
When Anthony Elonis’ wife left him, he posted a series of violent threats against her life in the form of rap lyrics on Facebook. He used an artistic pseudonym, “Tone Dougie,” and included a disclaimer on his Facebook.
Recommended Stories
But the “raps” were disturbing: “I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess,” one reads, “soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.”
“If I only knew then what I know now… I would have smothered your ass with a pillow,” says another. “Dumped your body in the back seat. Dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like a rape and murder.”
Elonis maintains he was just joking. But his wife argues that the posts made her fear for her life. She received a protective order from him, but the threats continued.
Elonis was convicted, and has been in prison for three years.
Under current law, speech that is not acted on can be deemed a “true threat.” In this particular case, the government argues that the test should be whether a reasonable person would be threatened.
But many are worried that this sets an extremely broad precedent, and poses a particular problem with online speech, where people tend to be particularly thoughtless and flamboyant.
Elonis’ attorney argued that the government’s rule could result in arresting someone for posting on Facebook about police abuse in Ferguson with a quote from Thomas Jefferson on the “blood of tyrants.”
Justice Antonin Scalia remarked that the government’s rule “doesn’t eliminate a whole lot of speech at all,” according to the AP’s report.
“How does one prove what’s in somebody else’s mind,” asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
And Chief Justice John Roberts became an unlikely champion of hip-hop, wondering how the government’s standard might affect someone like Eminem, who infamously rapped about killing his ex-wife. “How do you start out if you want to be a rap artist?” Roberts asked.
