On Tuesday, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Colorado online stalker, strengthening the standard for social media threats.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing on behalf of a 7-2 majority, stated that according to the First Amendment, it is still necessary to demonstrate that the defendant possessed some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of their statements.
First Amendment Violation Claimed in Supreme Court Ruling
In 2016, the plaintiff Billy Raymond Counterman was prosecuted by Colorado and convicted in a state court based on numerous Facebook messages he sent to a female singer-songwriter, which were objectively deemed threatening and received as such by the victim, Coles Whalen.
Counterman served a prison sentence of 4½ years, despite maintaining that he never intended to threaten the musician.
According to Kagan, it is necessary for the state to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly ignored a substantial risk that their communications would be interpreted as violent threats. The Supreme Court concluded that the state did not present sufficient evidence of intent or state of mind, leading Kagan to view this as a violation of the First Amendment.
Justice Kagan Balances Concerns in Majority Opinion
Whalen conveyed her dissatisfaction with the Court’s ruling through her website, highlighting the detrimental consequences of stalking and threats on both victims and their families. She strongly encouraged individuals who feel fearful to reach out for assistance.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that Counterman had indeed made true threats outside the scope of First Amendment protection, causing the victim to fear for her life and disrupt her daily life.
Supporters of Counterman’s case, including legal scholars, believe that the ruling strengthens free speech protections and reduces the risk of criminalizing misunderstandings. Critics, however, caution that it may hinder law enforcement’s ability to protect individuals online in the face of prevalent threatening behavior.
Justice Kagan acknowledged these concerns on behalf of the majority but stated in the court’s opinion that the new standard would not unduly sacrifice the benefits of enforcing laws against genuine threats.
Read more: Russian Claims Of Intercepting UK Military Aircraft In Black Sea
