The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in Elonis vs. United States to discern what proof is needed for conviction under a federal law when citizens make threats via the Internet or other forms of communications. The case centers around  Anthony Douglas Elonis who was convicted for posting what prosecutors considered threats of violence on Facebook.

A ruling against Elonis would not necessarily harm the First Amendment, Professor Ronald Krotoszynski told AL.com

“If [Elonis] couldn’t go to [his wife’s] house and point a gun at her head, why can he do the equivalent through a speech act and avoid any liability when some of these posts might be even more threatening than driving by while brandishing a gun?” Krotoszynski said. “There’s nothing in the First Amendment that makes speech absolutely protected in terms of its social cost…what we’re talking about here is essentially imposing psychological, even physical, harm on a person.”

For more, read “Elonis vs. United States: Facebook Case to Test Law, Boundaries of Online Communications.”