Elonis v. United States
| Citation | 135 S.Ct. 2001,192 L.Ed.2d 1,575 U.S. 723 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–983.,13–983. |
| Parties | Anthony Douglas ELONIS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
John P. Elwood, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Michael R. Dreeben, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Ronald H. Levine, Abraham J. Rein, Post & Schell, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, John P. Elwood, Counsel of Record, Ralph C. Mayrell, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Washington, DC, Daniel R. Ortiz, Toby J. Heytens, University of Virginia School of Law, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Charlottesville, VA, David T. Goldberg, Donahue & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY, Mark T. Stancil, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Eric J. Feigin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Sangita K. Rao, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Federal law makes it a crime to transmit in interstate commerce "any communication containing any threat ... to injure the person of another." 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Petitioner was convicted of violating this provision under instructions that required the jury to find that he communicated what a reasonable person would regard as a threat. The question is whether the statute also requires that the defendant be aware of the threatening nature of the communication, and—if not—whether the First Amendment requires such a showing.
Anthony Douglas Elonis was an active user of the social networking Web site Facebook. Users of that Web site may post items on their Facebook page that are accessible to other users, including Facebook "friends" who are notified when new content is posted. In May 2010, Elonis's wife of nearly seven years left him, taking with her their two young children. Elonis began "listening to more violent music" and posting self-styled "rap" lyrics inspired by the music. App. 204, 226.
Eventually, Elonis changed the user name on his Facebook page from his actual name to a rap-style nom de plume, "Tone Dougie," to distinguish himself from his "on-line persona." Id ., at 249, 265. The lyrics Elonis posted as "Tone Dougie" included graphically violent language and imagery. This material was often interspersed with disclaimers that the lyrics were "fictitious," with no intentional "resemblance to real persons." Id., at 331, 329. Elonis posted an explanation to another Facebook user that Id., at 329; see also id., at 205 ().
Elonis's co-workers and friends viewed the posts in a different light. Around Halloween of 2010, Elonis posted a photograph of himself and a co-worker at a "Halloween Haunt" event at the amusement park where they worked. In the photograph, Elonis was holding a toy knife against his co-worker's neck, and in the caption Elonis wrote, "I wish." Id., at 340. Elonis was not Facebook friends with the co-worker and did not "tag" her, a Facebook feature that would have alerted her to the posting. Id., at 175; Brief for Petitioner 6, 9. But the chief of park security was a Facebook "friend" of Elonis, saw the photograph, and fired him. App. 114–116; Brief for Petitioner 9.
In response, Elonis posted a new entry on his Facebook page:
App. 332.
This post became the basis for Count One of Elonis's subsequent indictment, threatening park patrons and employees.
Elonis's posts frequently included crude, degrading, and violent material about his soon-to-be ex-wife. Shortly after he was fired, Elonis posted an adaptation of a satirical sketch that he and his wife had watched together.
Id., at 164–165, 207. In the actual sketch, called " It's Illegal to Say ...," a comedian explains that it is illegal for a person to say he wishes to kill the President, but not illegal to explain that it is illegal for him to say that. When Elonis posted the script of the sketch, however, he substituted his wife for the President. The posting was part of the basis for Count Two of the indictment, threatening his wife:
The details about the home were accurate. Id., at 154. At the bottom of the post, Elonis included a link to the video of the original skit, and wrote, Id., at 333.
After viewing some of Elonis's posts, his wife felt "extremely afraid for [her] life." Id., at 156. A state court granted her a three-year protection-from-abuse order against Elonis (essentially, a restraining order). Id., at 148–150. Elonis referred to the order in another post on his "Tone Dougie" page, also included in Count Two of the indictment:
At the bottom of this post was a link to the Wikipedia article on "Freedom of speech." Ibid. Elonis's reference to the police was the basis for Count Three of his indictment, threatening law enforcement officers.
That same month, interspersed with posts about a movie Elonis liked and observations on a comedian's social commentary, id., at 356–358, Elonis posted an entry that gave rise to Count Four of his indictment:
Meanwhile, park security had informed both local police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation about Elonis's posts, and FBI Agent Denise Stevens had created a Facebook account to monitor his online activity. Id., at 49–51, 125. After the post about a school shooting, Agent Stevens and her partner visited Elonis at his house. Id., at 65–66. Following their visit, during which Elonis was polite but uncooperative, Elonis posted another entry on his Facebook page, called "Little Agent Lady," which led to Count Five:
A grand jury indicted Elonis for making threats to injure patrons and employees of the park, his estranged wife, police officers, a kindergarten class, and an FBI agent, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). App. 14–17. In the District Court, Elonis moved to dismiss the indictment for failing to allege that he had intended to threaten anyone. The District Court denied the motion, holding that Third Circuit precedent required only that Elonis "intentionally made the communication, not that he intended to make a threat." App. to Pet. for Cert. 51a. At trial, Elonis testified that his posts emulated the rap lyrics of the well-known performer Eminem, some of which involve fantasies about killing his ex-wife. App. 225. In Elonis's view, he had posted "nothing ... that hasn't been said already." Id., at 205. The Government presented as witnesses Elonis's wife and co-workers, all of whom said they felt afraid and viewed Elonis's posts as serious threats. See, e.g., id., at 153, 158.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
López-Correa v. United States
...culpability." Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 252, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952) ; see also Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723, 135 S.Ct. 2001, 192 L.Ed.2d 1 (2015). The idea behind a criminal mental state requirement is that a defendant shall be "blameworthy in mind befor......
-
State v. A.M.
...S. Ct. at 2195 (citing Staples, 511 U.S. at 606, 114 S.Ct. 1793 ) (possessing firearms); see also Elonis v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2001, 2009-11, 192 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2015) (making threats); Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513, 522, 114 S. Ct. 1747, 128 L. ......
-
People v. Carter
...e.g., United States v. Jeffries, 692 F.3d 473, 483 (6th Cir. 2012) (Sutton, J., dubitante), abrogated by Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723, 135 S.Ct. 2001, 192 L.Ed.2d 1 (2015) ; Majors v. Abell, 361 F.3d 349, 355 (7th Cir. 2004) (Easterbrook, J., dubitante); Sherman v. State, 247 So. 3......
-
Cleveland Metro. Bar Ass'n v. Morton
...standard reduces culpability to negligence and does not require any awareness of wrongdoing. Elonis v. United States , 575 U.S. 723, 738, 135 S.Ct. 2001, 192 L.Ed.2d 1 (2015).{¶ 56} Effective February 1, 2007, we abrogated the Code of Professional Responsibility and adopted the Rules of Pro......
-
SEARCHING FOR TRUTH IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S TRUE THREAT DOCTRINE.
...INST. 1962). (34.) See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942). (35.) 394 U.S. 705 (1969). (36.) 538 U.S. 343 (2003). (37.) 575 U.S. 723 (38.) Watts, 394 U.S. at 705. (39.) Id. at 706. (40.) Id. at 707. (41.) See id. at 706. (42.) Id. at 707. (43.) Id. at 708. (44.) Id. (45.) ......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...1170 (2018). [140] 185 Conn. App. 287, 197 A.3d 464, cert, granted, 330 Conn. 947, 196 A.3d 327 (2018). [141] 538 U.S. 343 (2003). [142] 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015). [143] Black, 538 U.S. at 359. [144] 331 Conn. 239, 203 A.3d 1233 (2019). [145] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct 1868, 20 L. Ed. ......
-
The 'weaponized' First Amendment at the Marble Palace and the Firing Line: Reaction and Progressive Advocacy Before the Roberts Court and Lower Federal Courts
...U.S. 709, 717 (2012), treated Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969) (per curiam) as good law. See also Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723, 743 (2015) (Alito, J., concurring) (citing Watts with approval). Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 19-21 (1971), was cited as controlling ......
-
CRIMINAL LAW: CAPITAL FELONY MERGER.
...law rests on the idea that one must intend to commit a criminal act to be guilty of a crime. See, e.g., Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001, 2009 (2015) (explaining that the "central thought" of U.S. criminal law is that a defendant must be "blameworthy in mind" to be guilty); BLACKSTO......