free speech
This is a really interesting case, I"m glad you posted this. What's your take on it? For many of them, I would guess that they see the Internet as a tool, whereas increasingly the population sees it as a "place." We are living in some extremely interesting times.I wonder how many of the nine justices have ever been to facebook.com?
-That there is a great question. It's going to be increasingly difficult for SCOTUS to rule on cases involving technology that we all see as ubiquitous and they likely don't even use.
How do you differentiate the bullshit from the legitimate threat?
That's the judge or jury's job. I hope they will err toward very stringently disallowing people from saying hateful and stupid things on the internet (especially social media, which is more personal than a message board), but then I don't really give a damn about the insane obsession with free speech. EDIT: incidentally, there are currently guidelines in place for differentiating threats and non-threats, because various legal questions already turn on that issue. (Presidential threats and so on.) I'm not sure if those rules are any good, but the procedural precedent is there.