Court reverses Facebook ranter’s conviction

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court made it harder Monday to punish people who post threatening comments online, ruling that prosecutors must show the sender knew what he or she was doing and intended to threaten someone.

Before, most judges had said people can be prosecuted for sending threats online if a “reasonable person” reading the words would think they conveyed a true threat.

But in a case involving hostile comments made on Facebook, the high court rejected that view Monday and decided people cannot be convicted of the crime of sending threats unless they were aware that they were doing wrong.

The court’s opinion rested on a subtle point of criminal law and said nothing about the First Amendment or free speech. But it is likely to shield people who rant online or muse darkly about carrying out violent acts.

It is a setback for victims of domestic violence, who say prosecutors need more leeway to go after ex-spouses, boyfriends and others who post specific threats on the Internet.

By an 8-1 vote, the justices reversed the conviction of Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man who posted on Facebook what he called “therapeutic” rants about his estranged wife.

Tribune News Service