Brent Kendall has this story in the WSJ on the Elonis case, noted earlier here. Included is this remarkable passage:

"We're pleased that the Supreme Court saw the case for what it was: A criminal conviction for a 'crime' of speech based on only a showing of negligence," Elonis lawyer John Elwood said in a written statement. "We are confident Mr. Elonis will be vindicated" when the case returns to the lower courts, he said.

Are you serious, John?  Under the standard you conceded at oral argument -- knowledge that the statement would be perceived as a threat -- your client is stone cold guilty.  Unless you get a jury of total loons, they are going to have no difficulty at all concluding that he had to know that his revolting threats would be perceived as such.