Washington — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it would make it more difficult to convict a person for making violent threats against the president or other elected officials.
The Biden administration warned that the Internet and social media have expanded the number and types of threats in recent years, including online harassment, intimidation and stalking. And he warned that the case could affect its ability to prosecute threats against public officials, which have increased in recent years.
The high court was ruling in a case involving 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 suffered from a mental illness and that he never intended his messages to be threatening.
The question for the court was whether prosecutors would have to show that the person being prosecuted for making a threat knew their behavior was threatening or whether prosecutors would just have to prove that a reasonable person would have expected it to be threatening. Will see as
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority of the court that prosecutors must show that “the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.”
“The State must show that the defendant knowingly ignored the substantial risk that his communication would be construed as a threat of violence,” he added.
Seven justices agreed with the result. Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, dissented.
The Biden administration was among those arguing for a lower “reasonable person” standard.
The Biden administration had said, “Threats of violence against public officials in particular have increased in recent years, including threats against members of Congress, judges, local officials and election workers.” Stating that this matter may affect the prosecution in those cases.
All forms of speech are generally protected by the free speech clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution, but so-called “true threats” are an exception.
The specific case before the judges involved Billy Counterman. He contacted a musician via Facebook in 2010 and asked her if she would perform at a benefit concert, which she said he was organizing. The woman, Coles Whelan, answered but never heard back.
Whelan forgot about this exchange, but four years later, Counterman started sending her Facebook messages again. Eventually he sent hundreds of messages, some of which were nonsense and delusional and some were quotes and memes. Whelan never responded and blocked Counterman several times, but he would simply create a new account and keep sending messages.
Counterman believed that Whelan was retaliating through other websites and Facebook pages. Whelan becomes concerned after receiving messages from Counterman – including “You are no good for human relations.” Die. You don’t need it.” and “were you in the white jeep?” – suggested that he was following her personally. Eventually, the messages were reported to law enforcement and Counterman was arrested. He was convicted and lost the appeal.
The judge’s ruling is a victory for Counterman and his case is sent back to the lower courts to be reconsidered. In a statement, his attorney John Ellwood said they are “satisfied that the Supreme Court agrees with Billy Counterman that the First Amendment requires proof of mental state before a person can be jailed for making threatening statements.” “
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 harassing their victims.”
The case is Counterman v. Colorado, 22–138.
