When the U.S. Supreme Court took up the appeal of Anthony Elonis’ conviction in Elonis v. United States (Docket No. 12-983, Term 2014), under the federal criminal statute 18 U.S.C. Section 875 (related to the use of transmitting by interstate or commerce any communication threatening to kidnap or injure another person), observers and legal analysts surmised it was the court’s first significant foray into social media speech and content.
However, the decision, drafted by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and joined by seven justices (with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. writing in concurrence), overturned Elonis’ conviction on statutory construction grounds related to requisite mental intent needed to violate the law. The decision, however, keeps open the question as to whether Elonis’ statements are protected speech and, if so, whether any standard exists to gauge protected speech against direct or indirect threats made over social media.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
