Israelit v. Montgomery County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding § 2261A(2)(B) did not violate First Amendment as applied to defendant whose “messages were true threats”
• stating that the problem in Elonis—“a statute that lacked any scienter element”—was not present in Fleury, since 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2) “required proof that the defendant acted with the intent to harass or intimidate”
• finding no Elonis error where the cyberstalking statute required intent to harass or intimidate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).