Supreme Court weighing when online speech becomes illegal threat

When does an online threat become worthy of criminal prosecution? The Supreme Court is being asked to decide that unanswered question as prosecutions for online rants, from Facebook to YouTube, are becoming commonplace.

Authorities are routinely applying an old-world 1932 statute concerning extortion to today's online world, where words don't always mean what they seem. The latest case involving the legal parameters of online speech before the justices concerns a Pennsylvania man sentenced to 50 months in prison after being convicted on four counts of the interstate communication of threats. Defendant Anthony Elonis' 2010 Facebook rant concerned attacks on an elementary school, his estranged wife, and even law enforcement.

"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?" read one of Elonis' posts.

Whatever a so-called "true threat" is, it's not protected under the First Amendment. Whether online or not, other forms of speech that do not enjoy the backing of the constitution include child pornography and obscenity.

Only one federal appeals court has sided with Elonis' contention that the authorities must prove that the person who made the threat actually meant to carry it out. Eight other circuit courts of appeal, however, have ruled that the standard is whether a "reasonable person" would conclude the threat was real. The Obama Administration has until April 21 to respond to Elonis' petition to the Supreme Court.