The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of a Colorado man convicted of stalking a singer, which critics say could make it more difficult to convict a person of making a violent threat to public figures.
The court rejected the stalking conviction of Billy Counterman, who sent a barrage of unsolicited messages to Coles Whalen in a case involving constitutional protections of free speech, and ruled that prosecutors had failed to show that he understood the “threatening nature” of his words.
The 7-2 decision, penned by Liberal Judge Elena Kagan, overturned a lower court ruling that dismissed defendant Counterman’s claim that his messages to Denver singer-songwriter Whalen were protected under the First Amendment be.
Whalen said he sent thousands of disturbing and threatening messages — including things like “piss off” and “die” — to their personal and public Facebook accounts over the course of two years, some of which suggested he sent them to had seen the public.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting laws that “restrict freedom of expression,” but the Supreme Court has previously ruled that genuine threats are exempt from those constitutional protections.
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of a Billy Counterman, a Colorado man convicted of stalking a singer
Kagan wrote that the First Amendment “requires proof that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, in contradiction to the ruling, which was endorsed by fellow Conservative Judge Clarence Thomas, wrote that the decision “unjustifiably accords preferential treatment to true threats.”
Counterman had a history of making violent threats against women and was paroled for one such federal conviction in the two years he continuously contacted Whalen.
He was found guilty in a 2017 trial of stalking Whalen and sentenced to four and a half years in prison while filing his appeal against the Constitutional Court’s amendment.
Counterman’s communications to Whalen included messages that read, “Was that you in the white jeep?” and “You’re not good for human relations.” Die. I do not need you.’ Others used swear words.
Counterman argued, citing mental illness and delusions, that his messages were not intended to be threatening and were therefore protected speech.
John Elwood, an attorney for Counterman, welcomed the court’s acknowledgment that “the First Amendment requires proof of mental status before a person can be imprisoned for speech that is perceived as threatening.”
“Freedom of expression is too important to have people jailed for what is at most negligent,” Elwood added.
The Colorado stalking law did not require proof of a speaker’s subjective intent to intimidate.
Counterman sent a spate of unsolicited messages to Coles Whalen (pictured) in a case involving constitutional protections for free speech and ruled prosecutors had failed to show he understood the “threatening nature” of his words
Counterman argued, citing mental illness and delusions, that his messages were not intended to be threatening and were therefore protected speech
It partially defines stalking as communication that “would cause serious emotional distress to a reasonable person” – a so-called “objective” legal standard.
Counterman argued that prosecutors should be required to demonstrate a speaker’s specific intent to threaten before stripping an offensive statement of its constitutionally protected status.
The ruling didn’t go that far, saying prosecutors only need to show that a speaker acted recklessly, meaning the person “is aware that others might view his statements as a threat of violence and are making them anyway.” “.
Whalen has described the messages she received from Counterman as of 2014 as life-threatening and life-changing.
She never replied to Counterman during that time and suspended his Facebook account at least four times, prompting him to keep sending her messages from other platforms or via new Facebook accounts he created.
Whalen said that the news eventually paralyzed her with fear and anxiety, which caused her to cancel shows and turn down career opportunities, and caused her to apply for a concealed handgun permit and sleep with the lights on.
George Washington University Law School professor Mary Anne Franks, who filed a brief in the case on behalf of First Amendment researchers, lamented Tuesday’s decision.
“It is deeply disappointing that the Supreme Court has chosen not only to allow stalkers to act with impunity, but to do so on the basis that stalking is a First Amendment-protected free speech,” Franks said.
Counterman had a history of making violent threats against women and was paroled for one such federal conviction in the two years he continuously contacted Whalen
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, in contradiction to the ruling, which was endorsed by fellow Conservative Judge Clarence Thomas, wrote that the decision “unjustifiably accords preferential treatment to true threats.”
The 7-2 decision, penned by Liberal Judge Elena Kagan, overturned a lower court ruling that dismissed defendant Counterman’s claim that his messages to Denver singer-songwriter Whalen were protected under the First Amendment be
“By doing so, they have sentenced stalking victims to potentially life-long terrorism sentences and increased their risk of being killed by their stalkers.”
Brian Hauss, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, commended the Supreme Court for finding that “unintentional threatening speech cannot be criminalized.”
“In a world of misunderstanding and misunderstanding, if people went to jail, they wouldn’t be able to speak at all because they didn’t anticipate how their words would be received.”
“The First Amendment provides significant scope for public debate by requiring the government to demonstrate that the accused acted intentionally or recklessly,” Hauss said.