The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of freedom of expression in a case of online harassment related to the dissemination of threatening messages sent by an admirer to a country singer.
By a majority of seven out of nine judges, the Supreme Court ruled that a cyberstalker could not be prosecuted and convicted if he was unaware of the impact his messages were having on the recipient.
“True threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment,” which guarantees freedom of expression, and “are punishable crimes,” Judge Elena Kagan reminded on behalf of the majority.
However, the accused must have “a certain understanding of the threatening nature of his statements,” she adds.
Prosecutors do not have to prove that the defendant made the threat “deliberately,” only that he “knowingly ignored the risk that his communications could be construed as a threat of violence,” the court clarified, urging the courts to consider the Billy case Resume Counterman.
Between 2014 and 2016, this Colorado resident sent thousands of Facebook messages to singer Coles Whalen. “Die I don’t need you” or “Fuck you forever,” he texted her, opening new accounts every time she blocked him.
According to the musician’s attorneys, those messages “oscillated between the bizarre, the pointless, the aggressive, and the menacing” and “their animosity has only intensified over time.”
The young woman was afraid to cancel concerts. “I was terrified of being followed and attacked, I had no choice but to put my career on hold,” she said in a statement.
In 2016 she decided to press charges and Billy Counterman, who had already been prosecuted for harassment, was arrested.
After being sentenced to four and a half years in prison, he appealed, citing the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.
Billy Counterman “suffers from a mental illness and believed (the singer) was corresponding with him through other websites. “He did not understand that he was threatening and did not intend to,” his lawyers had pleaded.
Journalist and civil rights groups like the powerful ACLU had sided with him, fearing the risk of “unfounded prosecution” or “censorship” if the courts were content to assess the feelings of the posts’ recipients.
But associations that fight against domestic violence had warned that this interpretation of the law could make it more difficult to protect victims. During the hearing, the Colorado representative recalled that 90% of feminicides were preceded by episodes of online harassment.