Supreme Court Sides With PA Man Over School Shooting Facebook Threats

The Supreme Court says that a Bethlehem man who said over Facebook that he would carry out an elementary school shooting cannot be convicted just because a reasonable person would perceive it as a threat, according to a ruling handed down Monday afternoon.

The case of Anthony Elonis, 30, was among the first in the nation’s history to address the legal implications of free speech in social media.

Elonis was convicted in 2012 and his conviction was upheld in the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2013.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2, however, that it is not enough to convict someone based on a social media message just because a reasonable person regards the communication as a threat.

While the judgement is a benchmark ruling because it is the first of its kind, it does not explicitly state what the standard for convicting online threats should be.

The term “negligence” was used to describe Elonis’ social media posts.

“Our holding makes clear that negligence is not sufficient to support a conviction,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

After his wife left him, Elonis made a series of threats on Facebook against an eclectic cross-section of society, including his wife, Pennsylvania State Police, the FBI, Dorney Park, the Berks County Sheriff’s Department and an unidentified kindergarten class in the Bethlehem area.

Elonis posted the following to an unidentified kindergarten class:

“That’s it, I’ve had about enough

I’m checking out and making a name for myself

Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius

to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined

And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a Kindergarten class

the only question is...which one?”

Elonis’ defense held that Elonis is a rap artist attempting to express himself through his music and that he turned to writing lyrics to help him deal with his own depression.

In court briefs, Elwood’s lawyer said that Elonis’ posts frequently included disclaimers that he was merely exercising his right to freedom of speech.

“The First Amendment¹s basic command is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds it offensive or disagreeable,” Elwood wrote in court briefs.

Had the decision been reversed, it could have potentially created a new federal precedent for what governs free speech on social media channels.