Supreme Court Clarifies When Online Harassment Can Be Prosecuted
The Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision that upheld the stalking conviction of a Colorado man who sent numerous messages to a woman on Facebook. The court determined that the wrong standard were used in convicting the man and sent the case back down with a new test to apply.
The justices stated that prosecutors only need to show that the speaker was aware that their speech could be viewed as a threat and that the speech was reckless, even if not intentionally threatening.
This decision has raised concerns among those working to combat stalking in the age of social media, as it could make it more difficult for the government to prove that a series of messages constituted a true threat. Advocates for abused women have pushed for protection from threatening speech, while free speech advocates worry that the court’s decision could have a chilling effect on misunderstood speech that is perceived as a threat.
The case involved Billy Raymond Counterman, a Colorado man who was convicted of stalking songwriter Coles Whalen after sending her hundreds of direct messages on Facebook. Whalen found the messages to be “creepy” and was particularly disturbed by the indication that Counterman was surveilling her. Despite her attempts to block him on Facebook, he continued to create new accounts to send her messages over a two-year period. The messages included references to her whereabouts, expressions of frustration at her lack of response, and even a request for a “hot date at Wal-Mart.” Whalen took preventative measures such as hiring extra security and canceling performances due to her distress. Counterman’s lawyers argued that his conviction violated his free speech rights, claiming that he suffers from mental illness and did not intend for his messages to be threatening.
The Supreme Court has previously defined “true threats” as statements that communicate a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence, regardless of whether the speaker carries out the act. However, lower courts have been divided on whether the government must demonstrate that the speaker knew the threatening nature of their speech or if it is enough that a “reasonable person” recognized the threat. Counterman’s lawyer urged the justices to consider the speaker’s intent and avoid criminalizing misunderstandings. Colorado defended its stalking law, emphasizing that it aims to protect victims from intrusive and threatening conduct characteristic of stalking. The state’s attorney general argued that Whalen’s life and mental health were negatively impacted by years of unwanted messages, leading to the deterioration of her musical career.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-