The truth is that even when intent to do harm seems obvious, online threats are rarely prosecuted. Citron looked at the federal law that is the basis for the Elonis case and found that it has been enforced fewer than 50 times, online and off, over the past eight years. Stalking laws, domestic-violence advocates say, aren’t enforced much, either.

If the Supreme Court requires evidence of a speaker’s intent to harm in true-threats cases, it could give the police and prosecutors one more reason not to bring them. Maybe that’s simply the unavoidable consequence of a broad interpretation of the First Amendment. Let’s be clear, though, that such an approach to free speech doesn’t come free. The choice in this case between points of view — Anthony’s or Tara’s — mirrors another choice, between types of personal liberty. His or hers.