The Republican of Springfield (Mass.), June 2:

Imagine trying to explain rap music to an opera buff.

One could begin with the violence. There is, after all, an awful lot of it. There are tales of death and destruction and threats of more to come. From there, one might move on to describe stories of revenge and retribution, of betrayals and dynastic feuds. And then there’s the preening, the showmanship, the frequent desire some show to glorify themselves.

Oh, the listener might respond, sounds kind of like some opera.

Six months ago, the Supreme Court heard a case involving a Pennsylvania man who was jailed because of postings he made on Facebook. While his estranged wife saw them as threats, he argued that they were rap lyrics. Her position prevailed in court and Anthony Elonis landed in jail. And then the case came before the Supreme Court, whose members are so much better versed in the finer points of opera than rap.

Nonetheless, the court, in an 8-1 decision, threw out Elonis’s conviction on Monday, ruling that someone cannot be jailed solely because a reasonable person would find his postings on social media ”“ or elsewhere ”“ threatening. Rather, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, the mental state and intent of the poster must be considered.

The ruling didn’t draw a bright line ”“ or even attempt to imagine one ”“ but instead left lots of room for interpretation. This is as it had to be. When oral arguments were heard late last year, we said in this space that the case was an inherently difficult one, that justices would have to perform something of a balancing act in deciding which way to go. On Monday, their decision was exactly that.

The ruling, said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, “properly recognizes that the law for centuries required the government to prove criminal intent before putting someone in jail.”

The decision didn’t please everyone. There were plenty of critics after the fact, and Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, with Justice Samuel Alito, while siding with the majority, criticizing the nebulousness of the decision’s reasoning.

Monday’s ruling, of course, will not be the final word on the matter. In ways, it is merely a starting point. But it’s a good one.