Professor Ronald Krotoszynski recently told AL.com that the legal standard to judge whether speech is a threat is based on three points: the subjective intent of the speaker, the subjective intent of the victim or the recipient and a third where “you ask what a reasonable objective observer would think about the speech: whether they would treat it as hyperbole or whether they would treat it as a genuine threat.”
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Elonis vs. United States to discern what proof is needed for conviction under a federal law when citizens make threats via the Internet or other forms of communications. The case centers around Anthony Douglas Elonis who was convicted for posting what prosecutors considered threats of violence on Facebook. Since the government is not arguing whether to make speech a crime when it terrifies someone, Krotoszynski said the First Amendment should come out of the case unharmed.
“The subjective intent of the victim standard would go too far toward creating liability for hyperbolic speech,” Krotoszynski said. “The other two positions, it seems to me, are both pretty easy to defend. The government clearly has a compelling interest in protecting people from the anxiety of threats that result from being threatened with physical violence by their ex-spouses, for example.”
For more, read “21st Century Facebook Case Results in 19th Century Supreme Court Arguments.”
