Controversy over not guilty verdict for Facebook posts on ‘murder threat against ex-wife’

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling on Monday and issued a not guilty verdict on a man who uploaded Facebook posts threatening his ex-wife. As the Supreme Court broadly guarantees "freedom of speech" that the First Amendment to the Constitution defines even to include online channels, controversy over specific criteria has flared up. U.S. media outlets have shown keen interest in the Supreme Court ruling, judging that the ruling is the first case in which the court defines the scope of the First Amendment over protection of social media.

Anthony Elonis in Pennsylvania was arrested for the charges of uploading posts suggesting that he would kill his wife he divorced in 2010, a kindergartener, and agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and was found guilty in lower court and appellate court rulings, and sentenced to 44 months in prison.

Supreme Chief Justice John Roberts, who spoke for majority of the panel, said in the sentencing that “It should be an expression that could cause ordinary people to feel reasonable threat, and the defendant’s mental condition should be considered to check he had the true intent to commit crime.” Roberts thus judged that prosecutors failed to present enough evidence to verify his guilt. Instead, the court issued the verdict in favor of the defendant and his attorney, who claimed that his posts emulated the rap lyrics of the well-known performer Eminem, some of which involve fantasies and act to vent his anger.

Civic groups that support freedom of speech welcomed the ruling. However, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito who issued a minority view said, “The ruling has thrown users who upload posts on Facebook daily to a state of uncertainty,” and accordingly supported the lower court ruling that found whether Elonis objectively had intent to commit the crime or not does not matter much.

kyle@donga.com