XPost: law.court.federal, alt.freespeech, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: yourdime@outlook.com   
      
   WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the   
   stalking conviction of a Colorado man who sent a barrage of unwanted   
   messages to a female musician in a case involving constitutional free   
   speech protections, ruling that prosecutors had not shown he understood   
   the "threatening nature" of his words.   
      
   The 7-2 decision, authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, vacated a lower   
   court's ruling that had rejected defendant Billy Counterman's claim that   
   his messages to Denver singer-songwriter Coles Whalen were protected under   
   the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Whalen said he sent thousands of   
   disturbing and threatening messages over two years to her personal and   
   public Facebook accounts, some suggesting he had seen her in public.   
      
   The First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting laws "abridging   
   the freedom of speech," but the Supreme Court previously has held that   
   true threats are excluded from such constitutional protection.   
      
   Kagan wrote that the First Amendment "requires proof that the defendant   
   had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his   
   statements." Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a dissent to the ruling joined   
   by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that the decision   
   "unjustifiably grants true threats preferential treatment."   
      
   Counterman had a history of making violent threats to women and was on   
   supervised release from one such federal conviction during the two years   
   he continuously messaged Whalen. He was found guilty in a 2017 trial of   
   stalking Whalen and sentenced to 4-1/2 years in prison as he pursued his   
   First Amendment appeal.   
      
   Among Counterman's communications to Whalen were messages that read: "Was   
   that you in the white Jeep?" and "You're not being good for human   
   relations. Die. Don't need you." Others used expletives.   
      
   Counterman, citing mental illness and delusions, argued that his messages   
   were not intended to be threatening and were thus protected speech.   
      
   John Elwood, an attorney for Counterman, hailed the court's recognition   
   that "the First Amendment requires proof of mental state before it can   
   imprison a person for statements that are perceived as threatening."   
      
   "Free speech is too important to imprison people for statements that are   
   at most negligent," Elwood added.   
      
   The Colorado stalking law did not require proof of a speaker's subjective   
   intent to intimidate. It defines stalking in part as communication that   
   "would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress" -   
   known as an "objective" legal standard.   
      
   Counterman contended that prosecutors should be required to prove a   
   speaker's specific intent to threaten before stripping offending speech of   
   its constitutionally protected status.   
      
   The ruling did not go that far, saying prosecutors need only show that a   
   speaker acted recklessly, meaning the person is "aware that others could   
   regard his statements as threatening violence and delivers them anyway."   
      
   Whalen has described the messages from Counterman, which came to her   
   starting in 2014, as life-threatening and life-altering. She never   
   responded to Counterman during this time and blocked his Facebook account   
   at least four times, prompting him to continue messaging her from other   
   platforms or through new Facebook accounts he created.   
      
   Whalen said the messages eventually left her paralyzed with fear and   
   anxiety, causing her to cancel shows and turn down career opportunities,   
   and leading her to apply for a concealed handgun permit and sleep with a   
   light on.   
      
   George Washington University Law School professor Mary Anne Franks, who   
   filed a brief in the case on behalf of First Amendment scholars, lamented   
   Tuesday's decision.   
      
   "It is deeply disappointing that the Supreme Court has chosen not only to   
   allow stalkers to act with impunity, but to do so on the basis that   
   stalking is free speech protected by the First Amendment," Franks said.   
   "In doing so, they have sentenced victims of stalking to potentially   
   lifelong sentences of terror, as well as increasing their risk of being   
   killed by their stalkers."   
      
   Brian Hauss, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, praised the   
   Supreme Court for affirming that "inadvertently threatening speech cannot   
   be criminalized."   
      
   "In a world rife with misunderstandings and miscommunications, people   
   would be chilled from speaking altogether if they could be jailed for   
   failing to predict how their words would be received. The First Amendment   
   provides essential breathing room for public debate by requiring the   
   government to demonstrate that the defendant acted intentionally or   
   recklessly," Hauss said.   
      
   (Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)   
      
   https://news.yahoo.com/us-supreme-court-sides-man-143840756.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)