The Atlanta Lawyer August/September 2015 | Page 39

SLIP Student Essays
705,709 (1969) and United States v. Jeffries, 692 F. 3d 473,
478 (CA6 2012), to refute Elonis’s claim. He addresses the
decisions in these cases, which state that the communication
must be perceived as a threat by
a reasonable observer, to make
that claim that the Court should
have followed the precedent when
making a decision. In addition,
Justice Thomas addresses the
claim of intent. He argues that
the Court should follow its default
rule that states that general intent
is applicable to criminal statutes
involving speech. Furthermore,
Justice Thomas argues that the
opinion of the Court has only
resulted in confusion because
lower courts and attorneys do not
know the mental state required to
convicted a person under 18 U.S.C.
§875(c), which is similar to Justice
Alito’s conclusion (Denniston). He
argues that the confusion could
have been avoided if the Court had
simply followed the rule of common
law that favors general intent.
Justice Thomas believes that since
the majority was concerned about
protecting the innocent, the Court
should have provided a clear rule
about the mental state requirement
for a conviction.

it has simply allowed more freedom for those to choose to
threaten others through social media.

The decision of the Court aims to
protect the innocent. However, the
ruling \