THE SITUATION Anthony, distraught after he lost his job and his wife left him, takes his frustration onto Facebook. Under the assumed name of “Tone Dougie,” Anthony posts rap lyrics telling his wife, “There’s one way to love ya but a thousand ways to kill ya,” adding “I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.” He also writes, regarding a federal law enforcement agent who had questioned him, “Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat.” Anthony is eventually arrested for making these online statements. THE LAW According to 18 U.S.C. Section 875(c), it is a federal crime to transmit an interstate communication containing “any threat to injure the person of another.” WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Anthony was convicted of using interstate communications to threaten harm and sentenced to forty-four months behind bars. He appealed the conviction, claiming that his words were merely expressions of grief and depression and that he never planned to harm anyone. As part of his argument, Anthony compares himself to well-known rap artists such as Eminem, who routinely use violent imagery in their lyrics without getting arrested. The success of this appeal rests on the question of intent. Under the law, does the prosecution have to prove that Anthony intended to threaten someone? Or, does the prosecution only have to prove that he intended to communicate his lyrics on the Internet and that a “reasonable person” would understand the impact of the lyrics as a “serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily injury”? For her part, Anthony’s wife testifies that she felt “extremely afraid for [her] life” because of the posts. If you were a Supreme Court justice, would you uphold Anthony’s conviction that, as a reasonable person, he must have understood the seriousness of his online remarks? Or, would you overturn it because the trial court did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony intended to threaten his wife or the federal agent? Explain your answer.
