Supreme’s…Conviction for online threats have to really mean it?

The 7-2 riling seems to be a dance….

If the person receiving the message’s are scared?

Then THAT should be a crime…

The person in this case had already done time for threats…..

Hmmmm?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed the conviction of a man who made extensive online threats to a stranger, saying free speech protections require prosecutors to prove the stalker was aware of the threatening nature of his communications.

In a 7-to-2 ruling with Justice Elena Kagan writing for the majority, the court emphasized that true threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. But to guard against a chilling effect on non-threatening speech, the majority said states must prove that a criminal defendant has “disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”