A quick, jargon-free explainer to the Supreme Court case that will decide the limits of free speech online

[Commentary] Essentially, the Supreme Court is nailing down the exact line that separates a true online threat (which is not protected under the First Amendment) from disturbing, but non-threatening, online expression (which is).

Just as importantly, the Court is deciding who gets to decide when online posts are threatening, to begin with: the person who made the post, or a jury of his peers? In other, broader terms, the Court’s considering what you can or cannot say online, and who gets to do the judging. Needless to say, that matters but to anyone with an Internet connection and a keyboard. Which, I’d imagine, includes you. The fundamental decision at the heart of this case: Does it matter what you mean when you post something online? Or does it only matter how people read it? To the non-law-geeks among us, all this probably seems procedural. But its implications are pretty significant. This is basically a question of holding the bar for online threats up here (*hand at eye-level*) or dropping it considerably lower (*waist-level, let’s say*). Even without the whole “intent” standard, our legal definition for “true threats” is very narrow, and our protections for free speech incredibly strong. But as this case and others like it at lower courts have shown, those definitions and standards have had to evolve with changes to technology and the culture. This may be the first time the Court has ruled on free speech and social media. It will not, in all likelihood, be the last.