The Supreme Court has reversed the conviction of a man accused of sending his death threats to his wife and others via Facebook, and the case has raised new questions about when online threats are harmless venting and when they are serious threats.

Anthony Elonis served several years in jail for posting violent threats – which he called rap lyrics – to Facebook. In one post he referenced his wife’s Protection From Abuse (PFA) order against him, saying, “Fold up your PFA and put it in your pocket. Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?”

Elonis’ attorney, John Elwood, compared the rap lyrics to those of Eminem, who had also made references to violence against his ex-wife. Elwood claimed that the only difference between his client and Eminem is fame, and Elonis’ lyrics were simply a harmless form of expression that were meant “in jest.”

The Supreme Court seems to have agreed that the threats were not serious, as it has overturned Elonis’ conviction.

“Federal criminal liability generally does not turn solely on the results of an act without considering the defendant’s mental state,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. “That understanding ‘took deep and early root in American soil’ and Congress left it intact here.”

While the conviction was overturned by an 8-1 majority, Roberts and the court gave no official explanation for what mental state qualified for a legitimate threat.

Justice Samuel Alito agreed with overturning the conviction, but he severely criticized the court for failing to provide a clear ruling on the matter of what classifies the right mental state, saying, “The Court’s disposition of this case is certain to cause confusion and serious problems. Attorneys and judges need to know which mental state is required for conviction […] This case squarely presents that issue, but the Court provides only a partial answer. This will have regrettable consequences.”

With online harassment becoming an increasingly contentious issue in social media thanks to repeated examples of threats and bullying, the Supreme Court’s decision to avoid taking a stance means the debates will continue, and it largely falls to the social networks like Facebook and Twitter to moderate their own platforms.

Because we all know that has worked so well so far.

Photo by WEBN-TV