NNEDV Urges the U.S. Supreme Court to Uphold Conviction of Domestic Abusers’ Online Threats

October 20, 2014

Updated December 1, 2014

The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) urges the Supreme Court to uphold the conviction of Anthony Elonis, who made threats against his wife on social media. The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on December 1, 2014.

“A threat is a threat, whether it is made online or offline,” said Kim Gandy, President and CEO of NNEDV. “Victims of domestic violence, for whom threats are often accompanied by other types of violence, take all threats seriously.”

A threat is a threat, whether it is made online or offline

Elonis was convicted after making threats on Facebook, which included a post that said, “Fold up your PFA and put in your pocket, is it thick enough to stop a bullet,” after his wife received a Protection from Abuse (PFA) order from a Pennsylvania court. Elonis also wrote that he was going to blow up the state police and sheriff’s department, threatened an FBI agent, and said that he will make a name for himself by “[initiating] the most heinous school shooting ever imagined.” Because of these online statements, he was charged with and convicted of violating a federal law (18 USC § 875 (c)) that makes it a crime to use interstate commerce or communications to issue threats.

Elonis contended that he was merely exercising his First Amendment right to free speech and did not intend to actually harm his wife or carry out his threats. “Whether Mr. Elonis actually meant to kill his wife is irrelevant. His threats succeeded in doing what he intended, which was to further abuse his wife by making her fear for her life,” said Gandy.

His threats succeeded in doing what he intended, which was to further abuse his wife by making her fear for her life

This fear is not unfounded. In the United States, two out of five homicides of women are committed by an intimate partner, and an average of three women are murdered by a current or former intimate partner every day.

NNEDV submitted an amicus brief, with support from the Mintz Levin law firm, arguing that this case is not about freedom of speech but is about speech that threatens violence and causes real harm to another person. Whether or not the speaker intended to cause fear is indeterminable; but in cases of domestic violence, threats of murder andmayhem terrorize victims and disrupt their lives as they try to protect themselves and their children.

Learn more from our Tech Safety blog: Threats on Facebook: LOL, I Didn’t  Really Mean It.