them on the bus, sadly, others just watched. >> all right that is all of our time for this week. inside story is next on al jazeera america.

the court never defined what constitutes a threat. the big issue is whether or not anthony's intense makes a difference or whether it's how a reasonable person would interpret that message. whatever the court decides in this case is ramifications beyond the farrow facts of the case, everybody would agree what was said was offensive, tell. >>, repulsive to many. ultimately, the decision of the ram my occasions go far beyond, will cut to twitter, facebook, where he posted his messages and other individuals and social media platforms involved. >> we will be back with more

""inside story"." how does in tent factor into this case? when someone's using social media for violent fantasies, can the law define whether the sender had intention of carrying them out? stay with us.

>> what are we supposed to do to figure out intent. you can't get into his mind and you don't want to chill speech on the internet. do you wait until he picks up a gun? he threatened to go to an elementary school and shoot it up in a rampage that would rifle anything we've seen. do you wait until threats on the internet become real. at that time you can't shut the thing down. it's a very, very thorny for

nine justice in robes to manage in the internet age and quite frankly, i'm not sure how they hammer that out using the law in this was a 45-year-old case that established the true threat jurisprudence. that's where the law they're looking to come from and they have to modernize that for the current day and age. >> saying his client was misunderstood, was his lawyer arguing today he didn't mean snit. >> that's exactly what he was saying, but the justice weren't really buying it. that's what we have, that's what remains to be seen where they go with this, because anything they do, they're going to have to fill a certain gap in law, decide whether the in tent holds, you'd have to have judges and juries proving or deciding that the person really intended for this to happen or simply whether a reasonable person can construe it to appear as a threat. that's the big question the judge little have to decide and

the justice were pondering all sorts of hype they got can go question, could a teenager who pops off on facebook be implicated, could a rap artist at a concert citing lyrics with the in tent to entertain be roped in in the standard is lower than subjective intent. those are the questions the justice were grappling with today. it's unclear how they'll rule and if they'll rule against, how they would circumstance up scribe the law. >> he didn't do any of the things he wrote about on line, but when you're trying to divine someone's intent, do they have in fact have to walk out the door ready to do it before we say yes, he really meant to do it. >> they don't have to be able to walk out the door and ready and able even so commit it. the supreme court made it clear that you can have a true threat of violence even if the person doesn't intend to carry it out. the real question and what the

argument is his message got lost in translation, they were merely raps and that his subjected in tent therefore must count. as justice robert said today, really what is a reasonable person supposed to know about rap music? that's kind of the objective standard that most courts have followed. how would an average person, the hypothetical reasonable mythical person interpret this message. with rap music, the argument is that that's a very complex medium, that has a lot of boasting, toasting, mayber bowl, metaphor and rhetoric that nobody takes seriously. when m around m it is something, we know he's an entertainer. was he a rap regard r. artist. >> his wife had never seen him rap before. that there be an issue when it goes down below. >> subjective intent, isn't there really only one human being on the planet who knows whether he really meant it or

not? >> that ultimately is the case. the court looks to circumstantial evidence and that actually came up today when they were talking about that. you kind of look at the computer residue supposedly, had she visited her websites, where did she look, who had he called in the past? you're going to have to -- as justice ginsburg said, how do you prove what's in somebody's mind. you can't do it. you try to through circumstantial evidence. courts do this all the time by looking at things around them and maybe it's the websites he visited, where she visited, had they called before, had there been other exchanges. that ultimately if the court does say his intent makes a difference, they can't get inside his head so will look at surrounding circumstances to try to figure that out and yes, indeed, this is guess work. clay, thanks for being with us. jami, stay where you are, we'll be back with more ""inside story"" in just a moment. when we return, a look ahead to another case coming before the high court this week, a driver

for u.p.s. says she was dismissed for being pregnant when she requested alternate duty until after she delivered. young versus united parcel service in a minute. stay with us.

>> you're watching "inside story" on aljazeera america. i'm ray suarez. wednesday, the supreme court will hear arguments in the case of young versus united parcel service. there's been a law on the books since the end of the clinton administration called the pregnancy discrimination act that seeks to protect the workplace rights of pregnant women. in this case, a upa driver, peggy young maintains the delivery service failed to accomodate her needs during a pregnancy, during which she had been advised to do only light duty at work, by her

doctors. tom, as would a lot of gender discrimination cases, only women get pregnant, so it's an interesting challenge to think about workplace accommodation and what it means when men and women are both working side by side in similar jobs. what does peggy young say should have been done for her? >> peggy young says that the law as written should be a applied. congress pass add law, ray, that says women affected by pregnancy or child bearing shall be treated as other employees not so affected, but similar in their ability or inability to work. well, u.p.s. was accommodating people who had similar ability or inability to work, that is they couldn't lift 70 pounds, if

they happened to be injured on the job or had a permanent disability, but didn't accommodate every single possible employee who had such a ability or inability, so the fourth circuit said that doesn't show that hostility to pregnancy was the motivating factor to you're out. that's what this case is all about and it's from my point of view, from a plaintiff employment lawyer's point of view, the lower courts just aren't reading the statute as it is written, refusing to follow it. >> she lost in the lower courts. you know, tom, it's interesting for me to read this case, because for a long time, pregnant women in work places have argued to their bosses that they aren't disabled, that they shouldn't be reassigned, given different kinds of schedules because they are able to work, so here's a different wrinkle, a different approach. she was advised by a doctor to

not lift heavy packages during her pregnancy but this goes against that very modern workplace approach many women have taken which is i still can continue to work, don't treat me as if i'm a delicate flower. >> well, peggy young did say that, and she said that in her existing job, she didn't have to lift 70 pounds, that other employees occasionally did that, and ray, i've had that personal experience. i've represented women who have these weight restrictions and lifting restrictions imposed upon them, you can't lift more than 20 pounds, therefore we're going to get rid of you and these women are working as cashiers, they aren't working lifting 20 pounds and say hey, this isn't what i do, leave me in this job, so she did, peggy young did say that, but the point is that the law itself says ok, if 70 pounds really is

the legitimate part of this job description, and if other employees who have been disabled and some way or another are getting light duty, she should get that, too. congress didn't say it made any difference whether they were permanently disabled or not. the question is, is u.p.s. giving other employees the chance to do light duty who are similar to her in her ability or inability to work and they aren't giving it to her. that's the whole case from a plaintiff's point of view. >> i think i'm the only one on the panel who's been pregnant. >> i think that's fair to say. [ laughter ] >> since we brought in personal experience, i wasn't going to go there, but i will now. ray, to address specifically your point and also the case at hand about women, and i think it's very astute that you mention for so long women ever said let me work until the day i

am ready to stop working, and if i can until the day i give birth, that's pretty much what i did, that's because i was in a job that allowed me to do that. many women who sit at desk jobs and as tom suggests do the kind of jobs that allow them to keep working because they don't have to lift say 70 pounds, want to keep working, but this was a case where in the job she was in, her doctors suggested she could not lift given the nature of her pregnancy, more than 20 pounds. so she did not ask not to work. she asked to be reassigned within u.p.s. to a position that would allow her to do something else for the duration of her pregnancy that would not require her to lift the 20 pounds, or more, and there were other employees with disabilities that were given those reassignments, so the reason this policy is continual in discriminatory, wow

income jobs, entry level jobs where they have to do the lifting that they may not be able to do when they're pregnant. very often, women who are in higher paying jobs aren't put in this position, so there is an added class argument here in this case. that is part of why a lot of the amicus briefs make an argument for miss young. >> now, 40% of all households have a woman as a sole or primary breadwinner. this is a case that's bound to get a lot of attention. >> it absolutely will, and i would keep a close eye on justice ginsburg during on the ground arguments, because this is a very big issue for her. she's very passionate about this one and it's something, gender equality is something she made her name on belong before she became a judge. u.p.s. have changed their policy now to allow for the

accommodation that miss young had asked for, but the case movers forward regardless. i still think that she has a very tough case before the supreme court, because this supreme court is known for protecting the interests of business as they see it, and another as handing defeat after defeat to women's rights advocates. >> great to see you again, thanks all for being with us. that brings you guess to the end of this edition of "inside story." thanks for being with us at home. be with us next time. in washington, i'm ray suarez.

>> just an hours drive from kabul, is charkh district, afghanistan. as the us and nato prepares to pull out most of their forces later this year, i travelled here to try to see what life is like in areas of afghanistan under the rule of the taliban. after days of negoio