I'm Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and welcome to the latest of our We the People constitutional podcasts.

The National Constitution Center is the only institution in America chartered by Congress

to disseminate information about the US Constitution

on a nonpartisan basis.

And today we discuss a Supreme Court case

that raises one of the most interesting issues in the internet era,

namely what qualifies as a true threat?

The Supreme Court tackled this question earlier this week as the Supreme Court justices

struggled to decide whether speech made on Facebook should be protected even if it appeared to be threatening and they also

tried to come up with a standard about how court should instruct jurors to determine a threat

exist.

The case of Alanis versus United States originates near Bethlehem, Pennsylvania,

not far from the National Constitution Center.

A 30-year-old Anthony Olanas

is challenging a 44-month prison sentence

for posts he made on Facebook that seemed to target his wife

with violence including statements that he made online after he was served with a protection

from abuse order. John Elwood, the attorney for

Alonis argued that the lower court that convicted him

should have presented jurors with direct evidence proving

that he'd made the statements with the intention of harming his wife.

Alonis claimed he made the statements as therapeutic works of art in the form of rap lyrics

...