This holding does not help the Government. In fact, the
Court in Hamling approved a state court’s conclusion that
requiring a defendant to know the character of the material
incorporated a “vital element of scienter” so that “not
innocent but calculated purveyance of filth . . . is exorcised.”
Id., at 122 (quoting Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S.
502, 510 (1966); internal quotation marks omitted). In
this case, “calculated purveyance” of a threat would require
that Elonis know the threatening nature of his
communication. Put simply, the mental state requirement
the Court approved in Hamling turns on whether a defendant
knew the character of what was sent, not simply
its contents and context.