Journalism professor Will Nevin writes about the U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Elonis, that'll be heard in oral argument this week. At issue is whether a conviction for making "true threats" on-line requires that the speaker subjectively intended the threat or if a reasonable person would objectively view their speech as a threat. Anthony Elonis says he was writing rap songs and satire instead of wanting to make his estranged wife, law enforcement, coworkers and others fear for their safety.
Matthew D. Bunker, a professor and media law expert in the University of Alabama's College of Communication and Information Sciences told colleague Nevin that true-threat jurisprudence is "'not a fully developed area of the law. There are a few broad pronouncements from the Supreme Court, but I don't think the court has worked out the intricacies of the doctrine.'" Ronald Krotoszynski, a constitutional law professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, asked why Elonis should escape liability for threats made through speech when he would face liability for brandishing a gun, but Woodrow Hartzog, an associate professor and media and privacy law expert at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law, warned that a ruling against Eloni could limit more speech than is necessary.
Lawyer and Legal Journalist
