Case Name: Anthony Douglas Elonis, Petitioner, v. United States., No. 13-983 (2014)
Factual History: Anthony Douglas Elonis actively uses Facebook, a social networking Web site. After seven years of marriage, Elonis’s wife left him and took their two young children with her. Elonis changed his user name on Facebook to a fake name. He posted a threating photo of one of his co-workers and himself on Halloween. After his co-worker’s found out about the photo, Elonis posted a status threating to kill multiple friends and co-workers. He frequently posted degrading and violent posts about his ex-wife. Elonis was fired from his job. He continued to make threats to kill his ex-wife over his fake Facebook. After his ex-wife saw the posts, she feared for her life.
Procedural History: Elonis was indicted by a grand jury for making threats to injure multiple people including his ex-wife. …show more content…
This requirement if fundamental in criminal law. After reading into the mens rea requirement, the Court interpreted that it “requires a court to read into a statute only that mens rea which is necessary to separate wrongful conduct from ‘otherwise innocent conduct.’”
Elonis also presents an argument that without the subjective intent to threaten requirement, 875(c) criminalizes negligent speech, which would violate the First Amendment and be unconstitutional. In a previous case, Watts v. United States, the Court mad an exception to the rule for “true threats” of physical harm. Elonis emphasized that it is a limited exception, differing to most First Amendment cases. He argued that the exception for true threats does not remove negligent speech from the First Amendment protection.
In this case, after all the arguments are given for subjective intent to threaten, the Court held that the statute 18 U. S. C. §875(c) does not require the defendant to be aware of the threatening nature of the communication in order to be convicted of threatening
Factual History: Anthony Douglas Elonis actively uses Facebook, a social networking Web site. After seven years of marriage, Elonis’s wife left him and took their two young children with her. Elonis changed his user name on Facebook to a fake name. He posted a threating photo of one of his co-workers and himself on Halloween. After his co-worker’s found out about the photo, Elonis posted a status threating to kill multiple friends and co-workers. He frequently posted degrading and violent posts about his ex-wife. Elonis was fired from his job. He continued to make threats to kill his ex-wife over his fake Facebook. After his ex-wife saw the posts, she feared for her life.
Procedural History: Elonis was indicted by a grand jury for making threats to injure multiple people including his ex-wife. …show more content…
This requirement if fundamental in criminal law. After reading into the mens rea requirement, the Court interpreted that it “requires a court to read into a statute only that mens rea which is necessary to separate wrongful conduct from ‘otherwise innocent conduct.’”
Elonis also presents an argument that without the subjective intent to threaten requirement, 875(c) criminalizes negligent speech, which would violate the First Amendment and be unconstitutional. In a previous case, Watts v. United States, the Court mad an exception to the rule for “true threats” of physical harm. Elonis emphasized that it is a limited exception, differing to most First Amendment cases. He argued that the exception for true threats does not remove negligent speech from the First Amendment protection.
In this case, after all the arguments are given for subjective intent to threaten, the Court held that the statute 18 U. S. C. §875(c) does not require the defendant to be aware of the threatening nature of the communication in order to be convicted of threatening