4 ms·

For the U.S., this is Incorrect. That definitely does not meet the standard of a True Threat. It wasn't sent to the person involved, or even posted in their vie

For the U.S., this is Incorrect. That definitely does not meet the standard of a True Threat. It wasn't sent to the person involved, or even posted in their view by the speaker. Even if Elonis v. U.S. Had been decided differently, a Reasonable Person wouldn't look at that and conclude it was spoken seriously. But as it stands, a True Threat has a Mens Rea requirement. You should read up on the most recent Supreme Court case involving threats made on Facebook: A good intro to the case: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/01/feds-cant-base-threat-conviction-on-whether-reasonable-person-would-perceive-message-as-a-threat/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Collection of Primary Sources and commentary: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-s... An explanation of what "Mens Rea" means http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173 (yes, in webcomic form, but drawn by an attorney)

x1798DE 11y ago
I'm definitely aware of that case, but I wasn't seriously suggesting that this would pass muster in court, just that this is not a "threat" under the commonly understood definition of threat, and is only on the order of magnitude of "threats" prosecuted by government agents stretching their powers to the limits (charitably speaking). I was also obliquely referring to this case, which has a closer fact pattern: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/tech/social-media/facebook-threat-carter/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/tech/social-media/facebook-thr... (he was clearly joking and there wasn't any clear target to even send it to).
- afarrell 11y ago
  That is actually totally an oversight on my part. Arrest != conviction and it is always the possibility that a random cop/DA is actually a bonehead.

x1798DE 11y ago

I'm definitely aware of that case, but I wasn't seriously suggesting that this would pass muster in court, just that this is not a "threat" under the commonly understood definition of threat, and is only on the order of magnitude of "threats" prosecuted by government agents stretching their powers to the limits (charitably speaking). I was also obliquely referring to this case, which has a closer fact pattern: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/tech/social-media/facebook-threat-carter/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/tech/social-media/facebook-thr... (he was clearly joking and there wasn't any clear target to even send it to).

afarrell 11y ago
That is actually totally an oversight on my part. Arrest != conviction and it is always the possibility that a random cop/DA is actually a bonehead.