The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to make it more difficult to convict a person of making a violent threat, including against the president or other elected officials. The Biden administration had warned that the internet and social media have expanded the number and kinds of threats in recent years, including online harassment, intimidation, and stalking. And they warned the case could affect the ability to prosecute threats against public officials, which have increased in recent years, the AP reports. The high court was ruling in a case that involves a man who was sentenced to more than four years in prison in Colorado for sending threatening Facebook messages. The man's lawyers had argued that he suffers from mental illness and never intended his messages to be threatening.
The question for the court was whether prosecutors must show that a person being prosecuted for making a threat knew their behavior was threatening or whether prosecutors just have to prove that a reasonable person would see it as threatening. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a majority of the court that prosecutors have to show that "the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements." "The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence," she said. Seven justices agreed with the outcome. Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, dissented.
Speech of all kinds is generally protected by the free speech clause in the Constitution's First Amendment, but so-called "true threats" are an exception. The specific case before the justices involved Billy Counterman. He contacted a musician through Facebook in 2010 to ask her if she would perform in a benefit concert he said he was organizing. The woman, Coles Whalen, responded but nothing ever came of it. Whalen forgot about the exchange, but four years later, Counterman began sending her Facebook messages again. He ultimately sent hundreds of messages including ones that were rambling and delusional and others that were quotes and memes. Whalen never responded and blocked Counterman several times, but he would just create a new account and continue sending messages.
story continues below
Whalen became concerned after Counterman's messages—including "You're not being good for human relations. Die. Don't need you." and "Was that you in the white Jeep?"—suggested he was following her in person. Eventually, the messages were reported to law enforcement and Counterman was arrested. He was convicted and lost an appeal. The justices' ruling is a victory for Counterman and sends his case back to lower courts for another look. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, whose office prosecuted Counterman, said in a statement that the decision will make it "more difficult to stop stalkers from tormenting their victims." (More US Supreme Court stories.)
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
