I was just hoping someone could keep us updated. Pardon the fuck outta me.

It's clear that threatening violence is illegal. The issue for SCOTUS is whether the prosecution has to show that the defendant intended the statement to be interpreted as a true threat, or whether it's enough for conviction that, even if the defendant didn't mean it that way, reasonable people would so interpret it.

The petition for certiorari raised the issue of whether the weaker, objective standard (not requiring proof of intent), under which this defendant was convicted, violates the First Amendment.

An interesting development that may help us foretell the decision: The Court, in agreeing to hear the case, took the unusual step of raising an additional issue. The order granting the petition stated: "In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: 'Whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation, conviction of threatening another person under 18 U. S. C. §875(c) requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten.'"

Based on that straw in the wind and little else, I'll hazard a guess that the Court is looking to duck the Constitutional question by holding that the statute requires bad intent on the part of the defendant.

Incidentally, to the extent that the conviction rests on the "head on a stick" comment, it's pretty weak. The defendant had other posts that were worse, such as one talking about how someone could attack the house with a mortar, accompanied by a crude diagram of an attacker's optimum mortar position and subsequent escape route. Here was the "head on a stick" comment, as relayed in the cert petition:

To my mind, his suggestion of a Halloween costume didn't mean that he actually "called for" her head on a stick, as the Guardian states. If I were on the jury, I'd find that to be a joke, not a true threat. The joke is in very bad taste but bad taste isn't a criminal offense.

There's an amicus brief from an interesting collection: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a woman who's an activist for peace and women's rights, and some anti-abortion groups. They express concern that, if the law makes it too easy for the government to get a criminal conviction for speech, regardless of what the speaker intended, then "such a rule would allow majority groups or the Government to use the criminal threats statute as a sword to silence opposition on issues where dissenting voices are critical." Perhaps Operation Rescue and that bunch will sway the five Catholic men who made up the Hobby Lobby majority, while PETA and the progressive activist will bring along the four liberal Justices.

You always manage to clarify the issues so well.