mr. elonis how this woe circumscribe the law. >> mr. elonis didn't do anything he wrote online but when you are trying to divine someone's intent do they have to walk out the door ready to do it, before we say, yes see, he really meant to do it. >> they don't have to walk out the door able to commit it. the supreme court has made clear in the past, you can have a true sense of intent even though the person doesn't intend to carry it out. what the justices were hearing was, justice roberts said what is a reasonable person supposed to know about rap music, that is an objective course the justices would follow. with rap music the argument was made this is a very complex yeem, that has a lot of boasting toasting hyperbole and rhetoric. when eminem says something, do we believe him? that will be an issue when it goes down below. >> but that phrase that you use, subjective bent, isn't there really oant -- subjective intent, isn't there only one human being ton plan theat knows whether he meant it or not and that's anthony elonis,. >> that is t

mr. elonis was having difficulties after he separated from his wife and children.was unable to do his job at an amusement park outside of allentown, pennsylvania. he was sent home from work several times but employers because he was crying at his desk and accused of sexual harassment by at least one co-worker ultimately, he was fired by his job, and he did a post involving his co-workers at the amusement park that was not a very good one but he wasn't charged under that. it was the postings that hemade involving violent statements against his wife, against law enforcement officials in particular, an f.b.i. agent who visited his home after the phish began monitoring his posts and also against elementary schools threatening possibly to go in and have a major mass shooting. >> brown: let's look at one post he sent to his wife. there's one way to love you, but a thousand ways to kill you. i'm not going to rest till your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts. now, strong stuff, clearly. the argument from his lawyer today was what? that this

mr. elonis. this is an hour. >> elonis versus united states. mr. elwood? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, first amendment prohibits restrictions for a few well-defined, narrowly classes of communication, including what this court has called true threats. >> i'm not sure that the court did either the law or english language much of a good service when it said true threatening. it can mean so many things. that you really intend to carry it out, a. you really intend to intimidate the person or that no one could possibly believe. >> that's true. >> we can't fault you for citing what the premium court said. it's an unhelpful phrase. >> it didn't help that it didn't have the benefit of merits briefing or argument. if you look at the tradition threatening speech was not punchable like common law. until the late 20th century. >> if you threaten somebody with violence and don't actually apply violence, it's still assault, isn't it? >> i think assault is somewhat different. it can also be an attempted battery. it's my understanding there is law that quest

. >> your argument nexus point in case 13-983, anthony elonis versus united states. mr. elwood. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. the first amendment permits restriction on the content of speech for a few well-defined, their limited classes of communication clearly supported by history and tradition, cody what this court has called true threats. the government has failed to justify -- >> i'm not sure that the court did either the law or the english language much of a good service when it said true threat. it could mean so me think that it could mean that you really intend to carry it out, you really intend to intimidate the person, or that no one can possibly believe it. so i don't -- >> that's true. >> we can't fault you for siding with the supreme court has said, but it's a most unhelpful phrase. >> and also doesn't help that it was announced in a per curiam decision to didn't have the benefit of merits briefing or argument. but if you look at the tradition, threatening speech was not punishable at common law. and until the late 20th century, american t