SUPREME COURT: VIOLENT THREATS ON FACEBOOK MAY BE OK Art is about pushing limits. I m willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights. Are you?    Anthony ElonisThe Supreme Court struck another blow for free speech Monday, ruling that threats made over the Internet are protected unless they are malevolent or reckless.The decision was a temporary victory for Anthony Elonis and those like him whose threatening words on Facebook or similar social media sites may instill fear in their targets. But it was a defeat for the government and groups that defend victims of domestic violence.Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision for a near-unanimous court. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, and Justice Samuel Alito dissented in part.Elonis was 27 and recently unemployed in Pennsylvania five years ago when he began posting threats against his estranged wife and others, from a generic kindergarten class to the FBI agents who came to his door. He was convicted on four counts of transmitting threats and sentenced to 44 months in prison. He completed his term a year ago.The question that has split federal appeals courts is whether the threats must be intentional, or whether they are illegal just because a  reasonable person    such as those on the receiving end   takes them seriously. Elonis was convicted under the latter standard; a majority of justices ruled that s not sufficient.Elonis might not be off the hook, however. The high court s ruling means his case will be sent back to a lower court to determine whether he meant what he posted or, as he claimed, was just exercising his right to artistic expression. If the court rules that his posts were intentionally threatening, his conviction will stand.The case represents a critical test of free speech in the Internet age, when words that seem threatening emanate from violent spouses and video game-players alike. The justices were seeking a rule that could result in locking up the former and letting the latter off the hook.Elonis  case offered a perfect test. After his wife, Tara, left him and took their two children, he lost his job at an Allentown, Pa., amusement park and began a series of dark posts containing explicit references to violence against his wife, coworkers, kindergartners, police and the FBI.Sometimes, he imitated rap lyrics. Other times, he referred to his First Amendment rights. His lawyers said it was a form of therapy as well as art. Did you know that it s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife?  Elonis wrote in one of many posts.  It s illegal. It s indirect criminal contempt. It s one of the only sentences that I m not allowed to say. The lengthy diatribe copied nearly word-for-word a satirical sketch by the Whitest Kids U  Know comedy troupe, concluding with Elonis  own summation:  Art is about pushing limits. I m willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights. Are you? Read more: DFPGovernment News
supreme court violent threats on facebook may be ok art pushing limits i willing go jail constitutional rights are anthony elonisthe supreme court struck another blow free speech monday ruling threats made internet protected unless malevolent decision temporary victory anthony belongs like whose threatening words facebook similar social media sites may instill fear targets but defeat government groups defend victims domestic justice john roberts wrote decision court justice clearance thomas dissented justice samuel alto dissented recently unemployed pennsylvania five years ago began posting threats estranged wife others generic kindergarten class fbi agents came door he convicted four counts transmitting threats sentenced months prison he completed term year question split federal appeals courts whether threats must intentional whether illegal reasonable person receiving end takes seriously belongs convicted latter standard majority justices ruled might hook however the high court ruling means case sent back lower court determine whether meant posted claimed exercising right artistic expression if court rules posts intentionally threatening conviction case represents critical test free speech internet age words seem threatening manage violent spouses video alike the justices seeking rule could result locking former letting latter case offered perfect test after wife tara left took two children lost job allentown amusement park began series dark posts containing explicit references violence wife coworkers kindergartners police imitated rap lyrics other times referred first amendment rights his lawyers said form therapy well art did know illegal say i want kill wife belongs wrote one many posts it illegal it indirect criminal contempt it one sentences i allowed say the lengthy diatribe copied nearly satirical sketch whites kids u know comedy troupe concluding belongs summation art pushing limits i willing go jail constitutional rights are read dfpgovernment news
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: SUPREME COURT: VIOLENT THREATS ON FACEBOOK MAY BE OK Art is about pushing limits. I m willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights. Are you?    Anthony ElonisThe Supreme Court struck another blow for free speech Monday, ruling that threats made over the Internet are protected unless they are malevolent or reckless.The decision was a temporary victory for Anthony Elonis and those like him whose threatening words on Facebook or similar social media sites may instill fear in their targets. But it was a defeat for the government and groups that defend victims of domestic violence.Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision for a near-unanimous court. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, and Justice Samuel Alito dissented in part.Elonis was 27 and recently unemployed in Pennsylvania five years ago when he began posting threats against his estranged wife and others, from a generic kindergarten class to the FBI agents who came to his door. He was convicted on four counts of transmitting threats and sentenced to 44 months in prison. He completed his term a year ago.The question that has split federal appeals courts is whether the threats must be intentional, or whether they are illegal just because a  reasonable person    such as those on the receiving end   takes them seriously. Elonis was convicted under the latter standard; a majority of justices ruled that s not sufficient.Elonis might not be off the hook, however. The high court s ruling means his case will be sent back to a lower court to determine whether he meant what he posted or, as he claimed, was just exercising his right to artistic expression. If the court rules that his posts were intentionally threatening, his conviction will stand.The case represents a critical test of free speech in the Internet age, when words that seem threatening emanate from violent spouses and video game-players alike. The justices were seeking a rule that could result in locking up the former and letting the latter off the hook.Elonis  case offered a perfect test. After his wife, Tara, left him and took their two children, he lost his job at an Allentown, Pa., amusement park and began a series of dark posts containing explicit references to violence against his wife, coworkers, kindergartners, police and the FBI.Sometimes, he imitated rap lyrics. Other times, he referred to his First Amendment rights. His lawyers said it was a form of therapy as well as art. Did you know that it s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife?  Elonis wrote in one of many posts.  It s illegal. It s indirect criminal contempt. It s one of the only sentences that I m not allowed to say. The lengthy diatribe copied nearly word-for-word a satirical sketch by the Whitest Kids U  Know comedy troupe, concluding with Elonis  own summation:  Art is about pushing limits. I m willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights. Are you? Read more: DFPGovernment News
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: supreme court violent threats on facebook may be ok art pushing limits i willing go jail constitutional rights are anthony elonisthe supreme court struck another blow free speech monday ruling threats made internet protected unless malevolent decision temporary victory anthony belongs like whose threatening words facebook similar social media sites may instill fear targets but defeat government groups defend victims domestic justice john roberts wrote decision court justice clearance thomas dissented justice samuel alto dissented recently unemployed pennsylvania five years ago began posting threats estranged wife others generic kindergarten class fbi agents came door he convicted four counts transmitting threats sentenced months prison he completed term year question split federal appeals courts whether threats must intentional whether illegal reasonable person receiving end takes seriously belongs convicted latter standard majority justices ruled might hook however the high court ruling means case sent back lower court determine whether meant posted claimed exercising right artistic expression if court rules posts intentionally threatening conviction case represents critical test free speech internet age words seem threatening manage violent spouses video alike the justices seeking rule could result locking former letting latter case offered perfect test after wife tara left took two children lost job allentown amusement park began series dark posts containing explicit references violence wife coworkers kindergartners police imitated rap lyrics other times referred first amendment rights his lawyers said form therapy well art did know illegal say i want kill wife belongs wrote one many posts it illegal it indirect criminal contempt it one sentences i allowed say the lengthy diatribe copied nearly satirical sketch whites kids u know comedy troupe concluding belongs summation art pushing limits i willing go jail constitutional rights are read dfpgovernment news