A principle of law makes it clear that it must adapt to the times society is going through, and now things like "free speech" are much more complex than they were twenty or even ten years ago - and Facebook rants' Supreme Court ruling takes one step into legislation on the subject.
The Facebook rants Supreme Court case has kept many watching over its possible implications, as it would set precedent for how to define the limits between free speech and criminal action online, after a man was jailed when he posted a series of violent rants against others on Facebook, including his wife.
According to Fortune, the Facebook rants Supreme Court case involved Anthony Elonis who was imprisoned over his use of language and threatening vocabulary over Facebook, though he defended himself by saying he was only joking and his comments were in fact protected by the First Amendment as free speech.
NBC News reports that the Facebook rants Supreme Court case came to an end last Monday, when the highest federal court in the country said that the government cannot prosecute someone for sending Internet threats only on the way the message was perceived - although the decision stood on criminal law instead of the First Amendment.
According to Business Insider, the Facebook rants Supreme Court ruling was a narrow 7-2 one, and it was plainly stated that the standard to convict Elonis wasn't enough, stating that the prosecution would require more proof if they wanted to show that the Pennsylvania resident had indeed to act on his online threats.
"Federal criminal liability does not turn solely on the results of an act without considering the defendant's mental state," went the court ruling, in what many have considered a giant leap towards freedom of speech in US Internet law.
Basically, the Facebook rants Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that it remains illegal to threaten, but online comments aren't enough to base a case.
