But the state trial court found that his messages reached the level of a true threat, and the First Amendment did not preclude his prosecution. She eventually turned to the authorities and obtained a protective order, after which Colorado law enforcement arrested Counterman and charged him with stalking under a Colorado law that prohibits "repeatedly making any form of communication with another person" in a manner that would "cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person … to suffer serious emotional distress."Ĭonviction under the law requires proof that the speaker "knowingly" made repeated communications, and does not require the person to be aware that the acts would cause "a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress."īefore his trial, Counterman sought to dismiss the charge, arguing that his messages were not "true threats" and therefore protected speech under the First Amendment. She had issues sleeping, suffered from anxiety, stopped walking alone and even turned down performances out of fear that Counterman was following her. Whalen believed Counterman's messages were threatening her life and she was worried she would get hurt. What do you fear?" According to court filings, a third read, "You're not being good for human relations. In one, Counterman wrote, "F**k off permanently," while in another, he wrote, "I've tapped phone lines before. Whalen tried to block Counterman, but he created multiple accounts to continue sending them. Some of the messages were innocuous, while others were more troubling. The case arose from hundreds of Facebook messages Counterman sent to Whalen between 20. The state must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence." "We hold that it does, but that a mental state of recklessness is sufficient. "The question presented is whether the First Amendment still requires proof that the defendant had some substantive understanding of the threatening nature of his statements," she wrote. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said prosecutors must demonstrate that a defendant who made a threat acted recklessly - that is, with the knowledge that others could regard their statement as threatening violence - to establish that the speech is a "true threat" and thus no longer covered by the First Amendment. The court wiped away a Colorado Court of Appeals' ruling that upheld the conviction of Billy Counterman and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Colorado, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett in dissent. The high court divided 7-2 in the case of Counterman v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |