本文摘要：The US Supreme Court has thrown out the conviction of a man who posted violent messages about his wife and co-workers on Facebook, in a case that was being closely watched over its potential implications for online speech.美国最高法院(US Supreme Court)夺权了一名在Facebook上对其妻子和同僚收到威胁性言论的男子的罪名。
The US Supreme Court has thrown out the conviction of a man who posted violent messages about his wife and co-workers on Facebook, in a case that was being closely watched over its potential implications for online speech.美国最高法院(US Supreme Court)夺权了一名在Facebook上对其妻子和同僚收到威胁性言论的男子的罪名。该案由于对网上言论具备的潜在影响，受到了紧密的注目。
Anthony Elonis was convicted on four counts of transmitting threatening content in 2011 after ranting online about wanting his wife dead and, in one photograph posted on the social media network, holding a toy knife to the neck of a co-worker at an amusement park with the caption “I wish”.2011年，安东尼埃罗尼斯(Anthony Elonis)因四次传播威胁性内容而被定罪。他在社交媒体网络Facebook上大放厥词，称要杀掉自己的妻子——在上载的一张照片中，他握一把玩具刀指向游乐场一名同僚的脖子，同时配上上文字称之为“我期望”(I wish)。Mr Elonis argued that he was under emotional duress after his wife of nearly seven years left with their two children and that he was merely venting through Facebook.埃罗尼斯坚称，他与妻子成婚近7年，当妻子带着他们的两个孩子离开了之后，他深感很沮丧，他只不过是通过Facebook怒不可遏。
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, threw out his conviction on Monday, ruling that the jury was not properly instructed in the case. The US high court said that it was not enough for the government to establish that a “reasonable” person would have viewed Mr Elonis’s posts as threatening.周一，美国最高法院以7票赞成、2票赞成的比例，夺权了他判处的罪名。最高法院确认，陪审团在该案中对案情掌控失当。最高法院回应，美国政府没充足证据证明一位“有理性的”人会把埃罗尼斯的讲话视作威胁。
In a narrow ruling that dodged the First Amendment issues some free speech advocates expected the court to address, the justices found that the government must show that a defendant intended their posts to be threatening, or at least understood there was a possibility they would be viewed as a crime, to be convicted under the federal law barring the transmission of threatening content.在一份避免了美国宪法第一修正案问题（有些提倡言论自由的人期望法庭提及这些问题）的狭义判决中，法官们确认，政府必需证明一名被告人蓄意用言论来收到威胁，或者起码要明白该言论有可能被视作一项犯罪行为，唯有这样，才能依据制止传播威胁性内容的联邦法律对其定罪。
本文来源：博鱼boyu体育sports-www.ecutigercard.com
