On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an important case involving the meaning of “threats” under the First Amendment. Anthony Elonis has served more than three years in prison for posting a series of seemingly threatening statements on Facebook.

[...]

Elonis maintains that the jury decided the wrong question. The issue, he insists, is not whether a reasonable person would interpret a statement as a threat, but whether the speaker intended it as a threat – that is, whether the speaker intended to cause fear in the target. Elonis insists that that was not his intent. Rather, he argues, his intent was not to instill fear, but to express his own rage and pain through hyperbole and artistic license.

Who has the better of the argument?

Read more at The Daily Beast