In a far-reaching case to examine the limits of free speech over the Internet, the Supreme Court will hear testimony on Monday whether graphic or threatening posts on Facebook deserve protection under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The case, Elonis v. United States, centers around Anthony Elonis from Pennsylvania, who vented against his estranged wife and others when he posted graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook. Specifically, Elonis was convicted of making threats against his estranged wife and an FBI agent. After his wife left him, taking the couple's two children with her, Elonis began posting about her on his Facebook page using an alias, Tone Dougie.

There's one way to love ya, but a thousand ways to kill ya,

And I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess,

Soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.

Hurry up and die bitch.

Elonis' wife Tara read the posts and went to court to obtain a restraining order, barring her husband from threatening, harassing or contacting her, even indirectly. Elonis, however, continued his postings about his wife and even went as far as to write rap lyrics about carrying out a school shooting, which got the attention of the FBI who paid him a visit.

Elonis was indicted on five counts of interstate communication of illegal threats. At his trial, he argued he was exercising his First Amendment free speech rights, while admitting his verse contained violent themes. The jury convicted him on the grounds that these represented true threats, and Elonis was sentenced to 44 months in prison. Elonis subsequently appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

"If the question had been what did he intend, did he intend to place her in fear, it would've been an entirely different trial," John Elwood, attorney, told National Public Radio. "The disclaimer posted all around the page saying basically, 'This is all for entertainment purposes only,' or that, 'This is venting, don't take this too seriously,' and when you put all that in context, it indicates he did not have an intent to put anyone in fear."

Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald thought otherwise and saw Elonis' posts as threatening and knew the effect they would have on his wife.

"The wife would read this and think, this is not an artistic statement, this is not a political statement about a larger cause," Fitzgerald told National Public Radio. "This is trying to get inside her head and make her think there could be someone doing violence to her."

Fitzgerald said there is an epidemic of threats on the Internet.

"So ... the societal value of making sure there is a safe zone where people aren't pickup up the Internet and feeling like they're being singled out for violence, that's a very real issue," Fitzgerald said.

The case has drawn attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted.

"A statute that proscribes speech without regard to speaker's intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simple because it is crudely or zealously expressed," said a friend-of-the-court brief from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Justice Department argued that no matter what someone believes about his comments, it does not lessen the fear and anxiety they might cause for other people.

In its brief statement supporting the government, the National Network to End Domestic Violence said, "Victims of stalking are financially, emotionally and socially burdened by the crime regardless of the subjective intent of the speaker."

Others argue that if the Supreme Court allows the conviction to stand, it will have wide implications for artistic expression and free speech.

For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has ruled that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected under the First Amendment. "But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as 'political hyperbole' or 'unpleasantly sharp attacks,'" according to The Associated Press.

A decision is expected in the summer.