DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court overturns online stalking conviction, citing 1st Amendment

The majority raised the standard by which social media threats can be punished.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of an online stalker from Colorado, tightening the standard by which threats made on social media can be punished as crimes.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for a 7-2 majority, said the "the First Amendment still requires proof that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements."

In 2016, Colorado prosecuted the plaintiff, Billy Raymond Counterman, winning a state court conviction by showing that hundreds of Facebook messages Counterman sent to a female singer-songwriter were objectively threatening and received that way by the victim.

He served 4½ years behind bars, even though he has always maintained that he never intended to threaten the musician, Coles Whalen.

"The state must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence," Kagan wrote.

That the state did not prove evidence of intent or state of mind "is a violation of the First Amendment," she wrote.

In a statement on her website, Whalen wrote, in part, "I’m disappointed that the Supreme Court’s decision has minimized the harm that stalking and threatening messages cause to victims and their families. Nonetheless, I hope the standard the Supreme Court established can be used in ways that allow for the protection of victims across the country. If you are afraid, please trust yourself and reach out for help. The Court’s decision does not mean that victims must stand alone."

"The thousands of unstable messages sent to me were life threatening and life altering," she wrote.

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas dissented.

"Counterman communicated true threats, which, everyone agrees, lie outside the bounces of the First Amendment protection," Barrett wrote. "He knew what the words meant. Those threats caused the victim to fear for her life, and they upended her daily existence. Nonetheless, the court concludes that Counterman can prevail on a First Amendment defense. Nothing in the Constitution compels that result."

Legal scholars supportive of Counterman's case say the decision bolsters free speech protections and reduces the chance of "criminalizing misunderstandings" -- as Counterman's attorneys put it in previous court documents.

Critics of the ruling, however, warn it will make it more difficult for law enforcement to protect people online at a time when threatening behavior is rampant.

"Stalkers are often oblivious to reality, and if you require the state to have to show that they understood that their words were threatening and creating this fear of physical violence, you could actually let a lot of stalkers go," Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in an interview with ABC News earlier this year.

Kagan acknowledged those concerns on behalf of the court's majority, but wrote in her opinion on Tuesday that the new standard would not sacrifice "too many of the benefits of enforcing laws against true threats."

"The rule we adopt today is neither the most speech-protective nor the most sensitive to the dangers of true threats," she wrote. The balance keeps "much of what is important on both sides of the scale."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sup...conviction-citing-1st/story?id=100414546

Counterman v. Colorado (22-138)

In case anyone wants to read the opinion itself.

In this instance the decision was vacated and the case was remanded back to CO to have another go at it, so it isn't over and done with yet.

Regardless the goal posts are being moved.

The block button is a thing

Which goal posts were moved?

They same goal posts that the righteous right always claim the left are moving silly.

So you are just complaining to complain.

Lol … yeah when the left claim the right is moving the goalposts it’s complaining. Ok, NP I’ll remind you of this post later I’m sure.

Which goal posts do you think have been moved? Be specific keeping in mind the post you originally replied to which was me simply reporting the disposition of the case.

I’ve already answered that question silly. Goal posts remain the same. And they get moved. Kinda Like rules remain the same and only apply to some.

You have only stated something happened, but continue to avoid committing to what that something actually is.

To Franky….







Here you go ….this is the goal post being moved by the right for prosecution of online stalking……pffft. I have no time for your dense argumentative semantics here.

So you could have said you were referring to that post when you replied. See how much easier it is when you are clear about things?

And you misspelled my name, try to be more accurate next time.

Lol You crazy. But that’s why I like you. It’s all good bro.

We should point out that this was a 7-2 decision with Kagan writing for the majority so tne "righteous right" didn't really decide this one.

The majority sitting on this Supreme Court is abnormally and immorally self proclaimed righteous right. Not a normal court.

And yet this was 7-2 and written by a looney leftie.

Too many courts have been too partisan for too long. Look at CA9, very left leaning historically. Is that your uda of normal?

Making it easier to threaten people, scare them and terrify them with no recourse isn't good for anyone.

Not surprised you would take that stand, not even a little. Not restricting speech because someone doesn't like it is critical, even when you hate that speech.

Speech is fine and the freedom to speak your mind is as well. What's not okay is to abuse free speech by making it an excuse to threaten others. I'm actually surprised anyone would see this as some partisan issue. So at what point do you consider a threat to others as being wrong or illegal? Or do you think there is such a thing? Can people just sit and make hateful threats of someone's safety and well being without any restrictions?

Just remember, you're an individual who supports stand your ground laws. So how far could a person go to threaten someone else before a stand your ground law would allow you to shoot and kill them because you were in fear for your life? Which law do you feel would trump the other? The right to fee speech or the right to stand your ground?

So you are an individual that supports not having stand your ground laws. You believe in duty to retreat. If you find speech threatening then you should leave. You should run away.

See, it's simple.

But I suspect you didn't read this decision either, you, yet again, allowed a media report to give you all the "facts".

Nice try at twisting things around. Avoidance speaks volumes. So you refuse to address what appears to be quite the double standard you hold. Or maybe you think they should be able to threaten people any way they want and just get shot for it afterwords.

I'm for self defense laws. I'm not for laws that simply allow someone to say "I was in fear for my life!" as an excuse to murder people.

You are the one that always has the double standard.

I don't believe we have liberty when you restrict liberty. Prohibiting speech is not towards liberty.

Someone how you always come out with the idea that if you give the government more power they won't abuse it, but if you let people live free they will.

BTW, stand your ground laws aren't an excuse for murder. Murder is still murder. But twist the idea. Just like those people that say things like "We need to reduce gun violence so we shouldn't allow people to carry guns in public". Conflating two things together to try and win your petty arguments doesn't mean they are true.

Making sure people have the proper training to carry a gun in public is far different than your claim of ""We need to reduce gun violence so we shouldn't allow people to carry guns in public". Of course you already know that and are just spewing false claims at this point.

There are already self defense laws on the books that allow you to use lethal force when it's actually necessary. For it to be legal to fire off 30 rounds at a guy out on your pool deck at night who is of no direct threat to you and made no attempt to enter your home is crazy. Stand your ground laws expand such situations allowing many people to be murdered needlessly. That has nothing to do with your cry of liberty.

And of course you already knew that the gun hating eft has been trying to lump lawful carriers into crime stats to skew the perception. It is happening here in MD, in NJ,NY, IL and other states.

MD was forced to issue permits. They don't want people carrying so they have now passed a law that, in essence, everywhere but roads are illegal to carry. But of course, I have no effin clue what I am talking about with this. And I didn't even mention "training" so there you are, yet again, trying to change the subject to have something to fight about. Dishonest as always.

Your comments were directed at me, not them. That's the problem here if you tried to be honest about it. You try to lump anyone that doesn't promote the right to carry an AK down the street with a 30 round magazine it it as being anti gun. I'm not anti gun. I'm pro common sense. There's a difference. Requiring a permit to carry doesn't make it illegal to carry.

There are certainly states that go too far in their restrictions on guns. Then there are states that don't go far enough. As with most things extremists rule the day while common sense be damned. Once again, I'm not the one trying to pick a fight here. And you act as though people can't see that.

I picked a fight by you replying to something I said. You really have no concept of reality do you?

Says a man with no concept of reality.

Oh there we go. The typical "I know you are".

Why play the whiner role?

More of your goto trope.

I see you have conceded.

It would take a far better man than yourself to get a concession from me. And that's setting a pretty low bar.

Stalking, be it online or IRL is scary and without a doubt, wrong. If you don't punish people for doing it, it's like you give permission.

But of course you weren't being personal or anything. Cause yer so awesomeness.

I am now. I give what I get. When you bring a knife to a gun fight this is what you get.

So you start by attacking me then blame me for it?

You really need to see someone. Seriously. Do you need us to help you find mental health help? Your grip on reality is tenuous.

You stalk me, should you be punished?


JK

Free speech or stalking?...a fine line. I throw up my hands and say "I don't know".

I worry that people as easily triggered as you are carry guns. Luckily I stay prepared for such possible consequences of that.

Paranoid delusions from you now.

Get help.

Just cautious of easily triggered and offended people walking around carrying firearms. Rambo wannabes are something to be careful of. Not afraid of just prepared for.