Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Counterman v. Colorado

![Seal of the United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png][float-right] Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the First Amendment requires proof of the defendant's subjective mental state—at minimum, recklessness—for statements to qualify as unprotected "true threats" in criminal prosecutions.^[1]^[2] The case arose from petitioner Billy Raymond Counterman's conviction for stalking under Colorado law after he sent over 100 unwanted Facebook messages to local musician Coles Whalen from 2014 to 2017, including statements such as "die" and references to finding her, which she perceived as threatening despite Counterman's claim of no harmful intent.^[3]^[2] Lower courts applied an objective standard, assessing whether a reasonable person would interpret the messages as true threats, leading to Counterman's guilty verdict and a sentence of four and a half years in prison.^[1]^[4] In a 7–2 opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court vacated the conviction and remanded for reconsideration under a recklessness mens rea standard, defined as conscious disregard of a substantial risk that the communication would be viewed as threatening violence.^[1]^[5] This ruling rejected Colorado's purely objective approach, emphasizing that true threats demand some culpable intent to avoid chilling protected speech, while Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing the decision could impede accountability for harmful communications.^[1]^[6] The decision underscores the Court's commitment to safeguarding expressive freedoms against overbroad threat interpretations, potentially complicating stalking and harassment prosecutions reliant on perceived rather than intended menace.^[7]^[5]

Case Facts and Proceedings

The Underlying Communications and Victim Impact

From 2014 to 2016, Billy Counterman sent hundreds of Facebook messages to Coles Whalen, a local singer and musician in Colorado whom he had never met in person.^[1] The messages varied in tone, ranging from seemingly innocuous greetings like "Good morning sweetheart" and offers such as "I am going to the store would you like anything?" to more hostile statements including "Fuck off permanently," "Staying in cyber life is going to kill you," and "You’re not being good for human relations. Die."^[1] ^[1] Counterman persisted in contacting Whalen despite her repeatedly blocking him on the platform, and some messages referenced apparent observations of her activities, such as "Was that you in the white Jeep?" and mentions of "a couple [of] physical sightings," though no evidence indicated he physically approached or followed her.^[1] Whalen responded by blocking Counterman multiple times and eventually obtaining a protection order against him in 2016.^[1] ^[8] The communications instilled in her a fear for her life, leading to severe anxiety, sleep disturbances, and changes in her daily routine: she ceased walking alone, declined social invitations, and canceled or avoided scheduling musical performances, which imposed financial hardship and diminished her enjoyment of touring.^[1] ^[6] Counterman maintained that he did not intend the messages as threats and was unaware of their threatening nature, viewing them instead as non-serious communications akin to those he had sent to other public figures; he provided no evidence of physical pursuit or direct confrontation.^[1] ^[9]

Application of Colorado's Stalking Law

Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-3-602 defines stalking as occurring when a person knowingly repeats a course of conduct, such as following, approaching, or contacting another person, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress.^[10] This provision under subsection (1)(c) targets patterns of repeated communications without necessitating a credible threat of physical harm, focusing instead on the objective impact of the conduct on a reasonable recipient.^[11] The statute enhances the offense to a class 5 felony when the repeated actions result in such distress to the victim or a family member, emphasizing emotional harm over explicit intent to threaten safety.^[10] In Billy Counterman's case, prosecutors applied this statute to his repeated Facebook messages sent to musician Coles Whalen between 2014 and 2017, despite her multiple attempts to block him, which prompted him to create new accounts to continue contacting her.^[1] Messages included statements like "Die. Go die. I know where you live," interspersed with mundane or ambiguous content, forming patterns that the state argued would alarm a reasonable person and disrupt Whalen's professional and personal life, leading her to alter routines and seek police intervention in June 2017.^[1] A pretrial dismissal removed a charge under the credible threat prong, leaving three counts under the serious emotional distress provision based on distinct clusters of messages occurring in 2014, 2015, and 2016–2017.^[12] The statute's "knowingly" mens rea element applied solely to Counterman's awareness of engaging in the repeated contacts, not to any subjective foresight that the communications would cause serious emotional distress to a reasonable person.^[1] At trial in 2017, the jury convicted Counterman on all three counts by applying this objective reasonable person standard to assess the distress element, resulting in a sentence of four and one-half years' imprisonment without requiring proof of his intent regarding the perceived threat or emotional impact.^[1] This approach aligned with Colorado courts' interpretation that the defendant's knowledge of distress causation was unnecessary for conviction under the emotional distress prong.^[13]

Trial and Appellate Court Decisions

In the trial court, Billy Raymond Counterman moved to dismiss the stalking charge on First Amendment grounds, contending that his Facebook messages to Coles Whalen did not constitute true threats.^[1] The Arapahoe County District Court denied the motion, applying an objective standard that assessed whether a reasonable person would interpret the communications as threats of bodily harm or death, and determined sufficient evidence existed to proceed.^[1] ^[14] The case advanced to a jury, which convicted Counterman of misdemeanor stalking under Colorado Revised Statutes §18-3-602(1)(c) following his arrest on May 12, 2016.^[3] ^[1] On appeal, Counterman argued that the First Amendment necessitated proof of his subjective awareness that the messages conveyed a serious threat, but the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on July 22, 2021, in People v. Counterman, 2021 COA 97, 497 P.3d 1039.^[14] The appellate court held that Colorado precedent required only an objective evaluation of the statements' threatening nature from the perspective of a reasonable recipient, without a subjective mens rea element for the speaker's intent.^[1] ^[14] It concluded that the messages—containing references to violence, death, and harm—qualified as true threats under this view, rendering them unprotected speech and justifying the application of the stalking statute.^[14] The Colorado Supreme Court denied Counterman's petition for review, leaving the Court of Appeals' objective-standard affirmance intact.^[1] This procedural outcome positioned the case for potential federal review by emphasizing the state's reliance on an objective reasonableness test to evaluate the communications' threatening character.^[1]

First Amendment Context

Doctrine of True Threats

The doctrine of true threats constitutes a categorical exception to First Amendment protections, encompassing statements where the speaker communicates a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group.^[15] This exception originated in Watts v. United States (1969), where the Supreme Court distinguished unprotected "true threats" from protected political hyperbole, reversing a conviction for a statement made at an anti-war rally—"If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J."—on grounds that its context indicated crude expression rather than a genuine intent to harm.^[16] The Court emphasized that true threats lie outside ordinary First Amendment safeguards to prevent the communication of intent to inflict bodily harm, while safeguarding vehement, caustic, or unpleasantly sharp speech.^[17] In Virginia v. Black (2003), the Court refined the doctrine by upholding a Virginia statute banning cross burning with intent to intimidate, defining true threats as those conveying a serious intent to commit violence, irrespective of whether the speaker plans to execute it.^[18] The rationale rests on shielding recipients from the fear of violence and the disruption it causes, as such statements undermine individual liberty and public order without advancing expressive interests.^[15] Cross burning, historically tied to the Ku Klux Klan's campaigns of terror, exemplified intimidation as a form of true threat when directed to instill reasonable apprehension of harm.^[19] Early applications of the doctrine employed an objective standard, assessing whether a reasonable person would interpret the statement as conveying a serious threat of violence, focusing on the listener's perception rather than the speaker's subjective mindset.^[20] This approach, evident in cases predating deeper mens rea inquiries, aimed to exclude jest, exaggeration, or abstract advocacy while permitting prosecutions for communications likely to provoke fear.^[17] However, imprecise application risks overbreadth, potentially chilling protected discourse on controversial topics, as vague standards may deter speakers from engaging in robust debate out of fear of misinterpretation.^[21] The doctrine thus balances suppression of intimidation against preserving free speech by requiring contextual evaluation to differentiate genuine menaces from rhetorical excess.^[22]

Evolution of Mental State Requirements Pre-Counterman

In Elonis v. United States (2015), the Supreme Court rejected a pure negligence standard for convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which prohibits transmitting threats in interstate commerce, holding that the government must prove the defendant acted with some awareness of the nature of his conduct rather than mere inadvertence.^[23] The Court emphasized that criminal liability generally demands conscious wrongdoing, analogizing to common-law assault where the defendant must intend to cause apprehension of bodily harm or act with awareness that such apprehension is substantially certain to result. However, Elonis did not specify the precise mens rea for true threats under the First Amendment, leaving unresolved whether the standard required subjective intent to threaten, recklessness as to the threatening perception, or merely knowledge of the factual content of the communication paired with an objective assessment of its threatening nature.^[24] Post-Elonis, lower federal courts exhibited uncertainty in applying mens rea to true threats, with many adhering to an objective reasonableness test for the threat's character despite the decision's signals toward greater culpability requirements.^[25] For instance, courts in the Ninth Circuit continued to evaluate statements under an objective standard, determining if a reasonable recipient would perceive them as threats of violence, while requiring only that the speaker knowingly conveyed the words without necessitating proof of subjective awareness that the communication would be interpreted as threatening.^[26] This approach treated the true-threat inquiry as primarily speaker-independent, focusing on the statement's apparent menace to a reasonable observer rather than the defendant's mental state regarding its impact.^[27] Other circuits showed nascent shifts toward incorporating subjective elements, such as evidence of the speaker's knowledge or disregard of the risk that recipients would view the words as genuine threats, but these remained inconsistent and minority positions amid broader retention of objective frameworks.^[28] The persistence of objective standards raised empirical concerns about overreach, as they permitted convictions for communications where the speaker lacked awareness of the substantial risk that the words would instill fear, potentially ensnaring protected expressive conduct like hyperbolic venting or artistic expression mistaken for menace.^[25] This misalignment contravened foundational criminal law principles requiring mens rea to ensure culpability attaches only to those who consciously flout social norms, rather than imposing strict liability for unintended offense akin to outdated negligence models rejected in Elonis.^[29] Such tests risked chilling speech by holding speakers accountable for reasonable misperceptions by audiences, without evidence that inadvertent statements posed equivalent harm to deliberate ones, thus prioritizing victim hypersensitivity over the defendant's mental fault.^[30]

Circuit Split on Objective vs. Subjective Standards

Prior to Counterman v. Colorado, federal circuit courts diverged on the mens rea required under the First Amendment for statements to qualify as unprotected "true threats," creating uncertainty in prosecutions for threatening communications.^[31] Circuits applying an objective standard held that a statement constitutes a true threat if a reasonable person would interpret it as such, irrespective of the speaker's subjective intent or awareness of its threatening nature. This approach focused on the statement's effect on an average recipient, allowing convictions without evidence that the speaker consciously disregarded the risk of instilling fear.^[32] The Third and Ninth Circuits exemplified the objective standard. In the Third Circuit, courts assessed threats based on whether a reasonable observer would construe the words as conveying a serious intent to harm, as in United States v. Hayes (2008), where no subjective culpability beyond communication was required.^[33] Similarly, the Ninth Circuit in cases like United States v. Bagdasarian (2011) upheld convictions under an objective lens, evaluating statements for their reasonable threatening import without probing the speaker's mindset regarding perception.^[34] These circuits prioritized protecting recipients from objectively alarming speech, arguing that speaker intent adds an unnecessary barrier to enforcement.^[35] In contrast, the Fourth Circuit adopted a more subjective-leaning approach, demanding proof that the speaker possessed the requisite mental state—such as knowledge or recklessness—to ensure the exception to First Amendment protection did not encroach on ambiguous or hyperbolic expression.^[26] For instance, in United States v. White (2012), the court emphasized evidence of the defendant's awareness that recipients would view messages as genuine threats, aiming to prevent punishment of inadvertent or artistic speech.^[36] This standard sought to mitigate overreach by aligning culpability with the speaker's disregard for the communication's impact.^[28] The resulting circuit split fostered disparate outcomes in similar cases, with objective jurisdictions facilitating broader prosecutions based on listener interpretation, while subjective ones imposed higher evidentiary burdens.^[30] Critics of the objective standard contended it promoted vagueness, potentially enabling selective enforcement against disfavored viewpoints by relying on subjective recipient reactions rather than verifiable speaker fault, thus risking chilling effects on robust debate.^[37] This inconsistency underscored the need for uniform guidance, as evidenced by varying affirmances and reversals in threat cases across circuits post-Elonis v. United States (2015), where the Supreme Court addressed statutory intent but left constitutional mens rea unresolved.^[26]

Supreme Court Proceedings

Certiorari and Briefing

The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on August 9, 2022, docketed the following day, and presented the question of whether the First Amendment requires the prosecution to prove that a defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements to convict under a true threats statute.^[38]^[1] Colorado waived its response initially but later filed opposition, after which Counterman submitted a reply on November 2, 2022.^[7] The Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 13, 2023, limited to the first question presented regarding the mens rea standard for true threats.^[7] The case was set for argument during the October 2022 term, with merits briefing commencing thereafter.^[38] Merits briefs from the petitioner highlighted the risks of an objective standard, contending it would criminalize ambiguous online communications and chill protected speech by imposing liability without regard to the speaker's mindset.^[39] Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, in an amicus brief joined by the ACLU of Colorado, the Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the National Coalition Against Censorship, urged adoption of a subjective mens rea requirement to safeguard robust public discourse, particularly in digital contexts where context and intent are easily misconstrued.^[40] In contrast, respondent Colorado's brief and supporting amicus submissions, including a multistate filing from attorneys general emphasizing public safety, argued that an objective reasonableness test adequately balances First Amendment concerns by focusing on how a reasonable recipient would perceive the communications, thereby protecting stalking victims without unduly burdening prosecutions of genuinely harmful conduct.^[41] These briefs underscored empirical challenges in proving subjective intent, warning that heightened mens rea thresholds could undermine enforcement against persistent harassers who plausibly deny awareness of their statements' impact.^[39]

Oral Arguments

Oral arguments in Counterman v. Colorado were heard by the Supreme Court on April 19, 2023.^[42] Representing petitioner Billy Counterman, attorney John Elwood urged the adoption of a subjective mental state requirement—at minimum, recklessness—for true threats, arguing that an objective standard risks criminalizing communications where the speaker is unaware of their threatening nature, thereby chilling protected expression like vehement criticism or hyperbole.^[43] Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser defended the state's objective "reasonable person" standard, contending it appropriately focuses on the communication's effect on the recipient and eases prosecutions in stalking cases, where proving the speaker's subjective awareness is often infeasible due to denials of intent or mental health issues.^[43] Several justices interrogated the balance between free speech protections and harm prevention. Justice Elena Kagan probed Elwood on the practical implications, asking what types of valuable speech might be unduly chilled by an objective test, emphasizing the need to weigh expressive harms against First Amendment values.^[43] Justice Samuel Alito questioned both sides on recklessness as a potential mens rea threshold, noting its moral culpability in contexts like a speaker disregarding the substantial risk of instilling fear, and raised hypotheticals such as repeated threats like "I'm going to kill you" delivered without deliberate intent but with conscious disregard.^[43] Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted the severe emotional trauma inflicted on victims by persistent unwanted communications, pressing whether evidentiary allowances for subjective intent sufficiently account for real-world victim experiences without undermining prosecutorial efficacy.^[43] The Solicitor General, appearing as amicus curiae, Eric Feigin, suggested recklessness as a viable minimum standard, acknowledging it strikes a middle ground between pure objectivity and purposeful intent, a position that drew interest from justices including Brett Kavanaugh, who similarly explored its alignment with existing First Amendment mens rea precedents in unprotected speech categories.^[43] Elwood conceded that recklessness would improve upon Colorado's objective approach but argued for a higher knowledge requirement rooted in the doctrine's history of intent-based exclusions from speech protections.^[43]

Majority Opinion

In Counterman v. Colorado, the Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that the First Amendment requires the prosecution to prove, in true-threat cases, that the defendant acted with some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements, and that a mental state of recklessness suffices to meet this constitutional threshold.^[1] The Court vacated the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals, which had applied an objective standard under state law, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the established mens rea requirement.^[1] Justice Kagan's opinion reasoned that true threats—statements conveying a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence—are unprotected by the First Amendment precisely because they convey no expressive value worthy of safeguarding, but distinguishing them from protected speech demands a culpable mental state to avoid erroneous punishment of ambiguous, hyperbolic, or inadvertent communications.^[1] Without such a requirement, an objective "reasonable person" test risks a chilling effect on free expression, as speakers would self-censor out of fear that courts or juries might misinterpret their words through a lens detached from the speaker's awareness or intent.^[1] Drawing from longstanding First Amendment principles, the Court emphasized that the Constitution insists on separating protected ideas from punishable conduct by filtering out non-culpable mistakes, thereby preserving "breathing space" for vigorous debate and avoiding the overbreadth inherent in speaker-blind standards.^[1] The Court adopted recklessness as the minimum mens rea, defined as a conscious disregard of a substantial risk that the communication would be interpreted as a genuine threat of violence.^[1] This standard, rooted in established criminal law traditions for offenses involving serious harm, strikes an appropriate balance: it demands more than negligence (mere failure to perceive a risk that a reasonable person would recognize) or strict liability (no mental element at all), but stops short of requiring purposeful intent or knowledge of the threat's perception.^[1] Recklessness ensures culpability by focusing on the speaker's subjective awareness of a grave risk, thus excluding accidental or careless statements while capturing those where the speaker "consciously accepted" the potential for harm without justification.^[1] In application to Billy Counterman's messages, the opinion noted that evidence of his persistence despite no-response blocks and the alarming content could support a recklessness finding, but left that determination to the lower courts on remand.^[1]

Concurring Opinion

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Gorsuch as to Parts I, II, III–A, and III–B, concurred in the judgment while expressing reservations about the majority's broad application of the recklessness standard to all true-threat prosecutions. She agreed that a subjective mens rea requirement is necessary to distinguish true threats from protected speech and that recklessness suffices in this stalking context, stating, "I agree that recklessness is amply sufficient for this case."^[1] However, she cautioned against extending the holding beyond the facts, noting the case involved repeated communications under a stalking statute rather than isolated statements or pure advocacy, which warrant narrower First Amendment scrutiny.^[1]^[6] Sotomayor emphasized that mens rea is not the only evidentiary consideration; contextual factors, such as the defendant's persistent conduct, can empirically support an inference of recklessness. In Counterman's case, she pointed to evidence of over 100 unwanted messages sent to the victim over two years, including after blocks via new accounts, as potentially indicative of awareness that the communications would cause fear, even absent direct proof of intent.^[1] This repetition distinguishes the scenario from ambiguous or hyperbolic speech, allowing prosecutors to rely on patterns of behavior to meet the recklessness threshold without undermining the ruling's safeguards.^[1] Regarding remand, Sotomayor underscored that the majority's reversal does not preclude reconviction; Colorado's evidence, when evaluated under proper jury instructions on recklessness, could still sustain the charges by demonstrating Counterman's conscious disregard of the substantial risk that his messages conveyed threats.^[1] She affirmed that the decision preserves practical tools for prosecutors in stalking cases, such as leveraging statutory elements of repetition and victim alarm, which align with the empirical realities of harassment without chilling constitutionally protected expression.^[1] This approach limits the ruling's scope, avoiding overreach into unrelated true-threat contexts like political rhetoric.^[6]

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the principal dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.^[1] Barrett contended that the First Amendment permits prosecution of true threats under an objective standard, assessing whether a reasonable person would interpret the statement as a serious expression of intent to inflict harm, without necessitating proof of the speaker's subjective mental state.^[1] She argued that precedent, including Virginia v. Black (2003), supports this approach, as true threats warrant no greater solicitude than other unprotected categories like obscenity or fighting words, which employ objective tests.^[1] Imposing a recklessness requirement, Barrett asserted, deviates from historical practice and undermines the doctrine's purpose of excluding only communications that convey genuine danger, not those negligently misinterpreted.^[1] Barrett criticized the majority's standard as a "Goldilocks judgment" lacking firm constitutional foundation, potentially complicating prosecutions by demanding evidence of the speaker's awareness of risks, which may be elusive in cases involving delusional or obsessive individuals.^[1] She highlighted the underprotective effects on victims, noting that true threats often cause severe psychological and practical harms, such as in stalking scenarios where repeated messages disrupt daily life, force relocations, or necessitate protective orders.^[1] For instance, Barrett referenced the factual record in Counterman, where the recipient's existence was "upended" by persistent communications, illustrating how an elevated mens rea threshold could enable harassers to evade accountability even when statements objectively signal imminent harm.^[1] This approach, she reasoned, prioritizes empirical realities of threat-induced trauma—supported by studies on stalking's long-term effects, including elevated rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide ideation among victims—over speculative chilling of non-threatening speech. In Barrett's view, the objective standard adequately safeguards against overreach, as prosecutors must still demonstrate context-specific factors like repetition or specificity to establish a true threat, ensuring casual or hyperbolic statements remain protected.^[1] She rejected analogies to defamation's actual malice rule, emphasizing that true threats target public safety rather than reputation, and warned that the majority's rule could erode civil remedies, such as restraining orders, by mirroring hurdles in private defamation suits where plaintiffs bear heavy burdens.^[1] Ultimately, Barrett would have affirmed Counterman's conviction, concluding that his messages—sent over two years, including warnings of serious bodily harm—objectively constituted true threats warranting no First Amendment shield.^[1] Justice Thomas filed a separate dissent, urging reconsideration of broader speech-restrictive precedents like New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) but aligning with Barrett on the case's disposition.^[1]

Doctrinal Analysis and Criticisms

Recklessness Standard: Rationale and First-Principles Justification

The recklessness standard requires proof that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that their communication would be interpreted as a true threat by a reasonable recipient.^[1] This mens rea threshold distinguishes culpable disregard from mere negligence or inadvertence, ensuring that liability attaches only when the speaker has elected to proceed despite awareness of the potential for the statement to convey a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence.^[1] By embedding a subjective component—focusing on the speaker's mindset rather than solely on the statement's objective perception—the standard safeguards against overreach into protected expression, as hyperbolic, emotional, or ambiguous speech that lacks such disregard remains immunized.^[6] From foundational criminal law principles, recklessness serves as the presumptive minimum for blameworthy conduct, rejecting strict liability regimes that impose punishment without regard for the actor's awareness of wrongdoing.^[44] Under frameworks like the Model Penal Code, this culpability level demands subjective appreciation of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, thereby preserving the retributive and deterrent functions of penal sanctions by targeting those who flout known dangers rather than inadvertent errors.^[45] Absent such a requirement, threat prohibitions risk devolving into liability for unpredictable interpretive variances among recipients, undermining the causal link between the speaker's choice and the offense—namely, the deliberate election to communicate in a manner heedless of its threatening import.^[46] An objective-only approach, by contrast, predicates criminality on how a hypothetical reasonable observer might construe the words, irrespective of the speaker's foresight, which empirically fosters anticipatory self-restraint in expressive conduct to evade unforeseeable liability.^[47] Studies of online environments reveal that vague regulatory threats—such as those arising from perceptual standards—prompt users to curtail controversial or pointed discourse, as individuals calibrate speech to the most risk-averse interpretations rather than their intended meaning.^[48] This dynamic privileges ascertainable evidence of the speaker's mental state, derived from context and circumstances, over unprovable claims of perceptual harm, ensuring that prohibitions target verifiable disregard rather than subjective unease detached from the communicator's agency.^[49]

Potential Chilling Effects of Pre-Counterman Objective Standard

Prior to Counterman v. Colorado, the objective standard for true threats—assessing whether a reasonable person would interpret a statement as threatening, irrespective of the speaker's mental state—posed risks of overbroad application, potentially deterring protected expression through self-censorship.^[1] The Supreme Court observed that such a standard could compel speakers to "steer wide of the unlawful zone," fostering a "cautious and restrictive exercise" of First Amendment rights to evade misinterpretation by observers.^[1] This dynamic discourages "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate," as individuals anticipate prosecutions based on how others might construe ambiguous language in context, even absent intent to threaten.^[1] Empirical instances illustrate this overreach under objective frameworks akin to negligence. In one case, a University of Utah student, Meredith Miller, posted a hyperbolic social media comment in 2019 joking about detonating a nuclear reactor if the football team lost; authorities charged her with making a terroristic threat, requiring $5,000 bail, based on a reasonable listener's potential fear, though the charge was later dropped after advocacy intervention.^[50] Similarly, isolated Facebook remarks, such as "Let’s burn this motherfucker’s house down," have resulted in arrests and jail time under standards evaluating objective perception, despite possible interpretations as venting or hyperbole rather than genuine menaces.^[6] Justice Sotomayor highlighted comparable scenarios, like a high schooler sharing violent song lyrics or uttering a drunken jest, which could trigger liability if deemed threatening by a reasonable recipient, amplifying caution around expressive content.^[6] The objective test's reliance on "reasonable fear" facilitates viewpoint-discriminatory enforcement, as interpretations of reasonableness often incorporate the listener's or prosecutor's subjective sensitivities, disproportionately targeting unpopular or dissenting voices.^[51] This causal mechanism incentivizes selective prosecution: statements evoking discomfort among politically opposed audiences—such as rants criticizing officials or satirical jabs—are more likely elevated to threats, while aligned rhetoric escapes scrutiny, eroding evenhanded application.^[51] Free speech organizations contend this expands "threat" beyond intent to intimidate into realms of mere offense, prompting speakers to mute controversial discourse to sidestep biased readings.^[50] By prioritizing listener reaction over speaker awareness, the standard undermines speech robustness, particularly countering tendencies to broaden unprotected categories amid cultural pressures equating disagreement with harm.^[1]

Counterarguments: Risks to Victims and Public Safety

Critics of the Counterman decision, including organizations focused on domestic violence prevention, argue that requiring proof of the defendant's subjective recklessness substantially heightens the evidentiary burden on prosecutors in stalking cases, where communications often form a cumulative pattern rather than isolated explicit threats.^[52] This shift, they contend, may allow persistent harassers to continue campaigns of intimidation by plausibly denying awareness of the risk their messages pose, thereby undermining deterrence against behaviors that impose severe psychological costs on victims.^[6] Stalking disproportionately affects women, with Bureau of Justice Statistics data indicating that approximately 1 in 6 women and 1 in 17 men experience stalking victimization in their lifetime, often resulting in heightened anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.^[53]^[54] Such concerns are amplified by evidence of stalking's emotional toll, as victims frequently report pervasive fear disrupting daily life, employment, and relationships, even without physical violence; for example, studies show that 69% of female and 80% of male stalking survivors receive threats of physical harm, fostering a constant state of vigilance.^[55] Victim advocacy groups, such as the Stalking Prevention, Awareness, and Resource Center, have highlighted how pre-Counterman objective standards facilitated convictions based on the reasonable perception of threat, which they view as essential for addressing the non-violent but debilitating nature of many stalking incidents.^[56] These critics, often aligned with progressive policy perspectives that prioritize victim protections, warn that the ruling could lead to under-prosecution, particularly in digital contexts where anonymous or ambiguous messaging proliferates, potentially emboldening offenders who exploit the mens rea requirement.^[57] Countering these claims, empirical analyses suggest that the actual risk of physical escalation in stalking cases remains limited, with Bureau of Justice Statistics reporting that only 12.3% of victims experience associated physical attacks like being hit or knocked down, implying that many pre-Counterman convictions under objective standards captured speech causing subjective fear but not imminent violence.^[58] True threats involving credible intent for harm—such as those accompanied by preparatory actions or explicit violent language—remain prosecutable under the recklessness threshold, as prosecutors can infer disregard of substantial risks from contextual evidence like repeated unwanted contact or the defendant's knowledge of the victim's distress.^[59] Prior to Counterman, the objective standard occasionally enabled convictions without robust proof of culpability, but federal true threat prosecutions succeeded in the majority of cases involving genuine danger, indicating that the higher bar targets overreach while preserving tools against severe threats.^[1] In response, victim advocates have called for targeted legislative reforms, such as state-level stalking laws that explicitly incorporate recklessness while providing evidentiary presumptions for patterns of conduct, to mitigate perceived gaps without diluting First Amendment safeguards.^[60] Conversely, free speech proponents, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, emphasize that retaining an objective standard risks a slippery slope toward punishing protected expression based on recipients' sensitivities, potentially chilling online discourse and enabling selective enforcement against unpopular viewpoints.^[50] This tension underscores ongoing debates, where data on stalking's harms must be weighed against the causal link between non-violent communications and public safety outcomes, with no comprehensive post-ruling studies yet quantifying conviction rate declines.^[61]

Impact and Developments

Influence on Subsequent True Threat Cases

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Counterman v. Colorado on June 27, 2023, federal and state courts have uniformly applied a recklessness standard to true threat prosecutions, requiring the government to prove that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that their statements would be perceived as threats.^[1] This doctrinal shift mandates jury instructions emphasizing the defendant's subjective awareness of risk, moving beyond purely objective "reasonable person" evaluations used in some pre-Counterman circuits.^[6] In practice, lower courts have upheld convictions where evidence demonstrates repeated communications despite recipient distress signals, such as ignored blocking attempts, as indicative of recklessness.^[62] In voter intimidation contexts, Counterman's standard has informed applications under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits threats or coercion against voters. Analyses post-decision highlight that prosecutors must now adduce evidence of the defendant's disregard for the threatening interpretation of statements, such as robocalls falsely warning of arrests for mail-in voting, to sustain charges.^[63] For instance, in cases involving disinformation campaigns targeting minority voters, courts have evaluated whether defendants recklessly ignored the coercive impact, leading to upheld felony charges in jurisdictions like New York and Michigan where intent evidence included coordinated dissemination despite legal warnings.^[64] This has reduced successful First Amendment challenges based solely on objective ambiguity, as the hybrid approach—objective threat identification plus subjective mens rea—filters out inadvertent statements while permitting prosecution of aware intimidators.^[65] For social media-based threats, post-2023 prosecutions have incorporated Counterman's recklessness threshold, resulting in fewer overturned convictions on mens rea grounds but elevated pretrial dismissals in approximately 20-30% of cases lacking circumstantial evidence of subjective disregard, such as persistent messaging after reports of fear.^[66] Federal district courts, for example, have remanded or dismissed select cyber-harassment charges where defendants plausibly claimed obliviousness to risk, contrasting with pre-Counterman outcomes reliant on viewer perception alone.^[60] Overall, the standard has streamlined appellate review by standardizing the culpability element, though it demands robust evidentiary showings from prosecutors to avoid acquittals in ambiguous online exchanges.^[67]

State Law Adjustments and Lower Court Applications

Following the Supreme Court's 2023 remand in Counterman v. Colorado, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed Billy Counterman's conviction on June 13, 2024, and remanded for a new trial, directing the trial court to instruct the jury on the recklessness mens rea standard for true threats as required by the First Amendment.^[68] This adjustment ensured that prosecutors must prove Counterman consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his messages would be perceived as threats of violence.^[68] As of October 2025, no public records indicate completion of the retrial, but the ruling sustained the viability of reconviction under the revised evidentiary threshold.^[68] In subsequent Colorado applications, lower courts have scrutinized stalking convictions involving communicative elements for true threat components, but declined to extend the recklessness requirement beyond explicit threats. For instance, on May 12, 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed a district court's dismissal of stalking charges in People v. Crawford, holding that Counterman applies only to true threats and does not mandate subjective mens rea for broader stalking statutes lacking threat predicates.^[69] Similarly, a February 6, 2025, Court of Appeals decision in an unreported case affirmed the need to evaluate First Amendment defenses under recklessness where threats are alleged, but upheld convictions absent such elements.^[70] These rulings reflect no statutory amendments in Colorado, but heightened judicial demands for evidence of subjective awareness, correlating with prosecutorial caution in borderline cases without clear threat intent.^[71] In Idaho, Counterman prompted no formal statutory revisions by 2025, but has reshaped prosecutorial strategies in stalking cases incorporating true threats, shifting from an objective "reasonable person" assessment to proving recklessness.^[60] A 2025 Idaho Law Review analysis highlights that Idaho's stalking statute, which previously relied on objective perceptions of alarm or distress, now requires subjective evidence for threat elements to avoid First Amendment invalidation, complicating convictions in scenarios like repeated communications to amateur athletics participants where intent is ambiguous.^[72] Lower courts, including a July 17, 2025, Idaho Supreme Court juvenile case, have applied this by distinguishing "true" threats demanding recklessness from protected expression, resulting in sustained prosecutions for overt risks but dismissals or acquittals in marginal intent scenarios.^[73] Across both states, 2024-2025 data show no mass reversals of pre-Counterman convictions, but evidentiary burdens have empirically reduced filings in low-intent harassment claims, prioritizing cases with documented patterns of disregard for threatening perceptions.^[60]

Broader Ramifications for Online Speech and Harassment Claims

The imposition of a recklessness standard in Counterman v. Colorado has been credited with safeguarding online communications from overreach by threat statutes, particularly in environments like social media where contextual nuances such as sarcasm or hyperbole are prone to misinterpretation absent nonverbal cues. By mandating that prosecutors prove the speaker consciously disregarded a substantial risk that their statements would be viewed as threats, the ruling diminishes the potential for subjective recipient distress to trigger criminal liability, thereby mitigating self-censorship among users engaging in vigorous digital exchanges.^[1]^[74] This protection extends to scenarios involving political or ideological disputes, where ambiguous rhetoric might otherwise be weaponized as "threats" to silence dissenters, echoing precedents distinguishing protected hyperbole from unprotected advocacy of violence.^[75] Critics, often from advocacy groups focused on victim rights, contend that elevating the mens rea threshold complicates harassment prosecutions, potentially emboldening persistent online abusers who can claim obliviousness to their words' impact, as evidenced by concerns over sustained messaging campaigns causing emotional harm without explicit violent intent.^[57] In contrast, free speech proponents argue this standard counters cultural tendencies toward hypersensitivity, where claims of harm from non-threatening speech—prevalent in polarized online forums—could erode debate without rigorous intent scrutiny, though platforms' private content moderation remains unaffected by the constitutional floor set for government action.^[76]^[61] Looking ahead, the decision may prompt legislative refinements in state harassment laws to explicitly incorporate subjective elements, fostering more predictable enforcement that prioritizes speaker awareness over expansive unprotected speech categories and reducing ambiguity in adjudicating digital interactions.^[60] This evolution could yield empirical reductions in marginal threat convictions, as lower courts apply the recklessness test to filter out inadvertent or rhetorical statements, ultimately reinforcing First Amendment boundaries in an era of ubiquitous online expression.^[75]

References

[1]
[PDF] 22-138 Counterman v. Colorado (06/27/2023) - Supreme Court
Jun 27, 2023 · The court accord- ingly sent the case to the jury, which found Counterman guilty as charged. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Counterman.
[2]
Counterman v. Colorado | Oyez
Apr 19, 2023 · Counterman sent creepy messages. The court ruled that to prove a "true threat" under the First Amendment, the government must show the speaker ...
[3]
Facts and Case Summary - Counterman v. Colorado
The Supreme Court's decision found that to criminally prosecute a defendant based on true threats, the defendant's subjective intent to threaten the victim must ...
[4]
Justices throw out Colorado man's stalking conviction in First ...
Jun 27, 2023 · The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the conviction of Billy Raymond Counterman, a Colorado man who was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for ...
[5]
Counterman v. Colorado (2023) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Jul 18, 2023 · The US Supreme Court in 2023 vacated the conviction of a man convicted of stalking Colorado musician Coles Whalen through online messages.
[6]
Counterman v. Colorado - Harvard Law Review
Nov 13, 2023 · The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the jury found Counterman guilty. Counterman appealed, bringing an as-applied federal and ...
[7]
Counterman v. Colorado - SCOTUSblog
To establish that a statement is a true threat unprotected by the First Amendment, the state must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding.
[8]
Supreme Court Overrules Colorado's Standard for Determining 'True ...
Jun 28, 2023 · While Whalen never saw Counterman in person, she canceled performances out of fear that he might show up and later obtained a restraining order ...
[9]
When are social media threats a crime? Supreme Court to decide
Apr 17, 2023 · Billy Raymond Counterman, who spent four and a half years behind bars, says he never intended to harm rising-star performer Coles Whalen, whom ...Missing: v. canceled
[10]
Colorado Revised Statutes Section 18-3-602 (2024) - Stalking
(1) A person commits stalking if directly, or indirectly through another person, the person knowingly: (a) Makes a credible threat to another person ...Missing: text | Show results with:text
[11]
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-3-602
A person commits stalking if directly, or indirectly through another person, the person knowingly: (a) Makes a credible threat to another person.Missing: text | Show results with:text
[12]
Unraveling speech and conduct in stalking and harassment cases in ...
Mr. Counterman was charged with the offense of “stalking—serious emotional distress” under Colorado law (another count of stalking—credible threat was dismissed ...
[13]
Colorado Stalking Laws 18-3-602 - To Convict, A Defendant Does ...
A Defendant – the alleged stalker – does not need to know that his or her conduct would cause a reasonable person serious emotional distress to be convicted of ...Missing: text | Show results with:text
[14]
People v. Counterman - Colorado Case Law
People v. Counterman, Annotate this Case, Download PDF, Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies.
[15]
Virginia v. Black | 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and the ...
[16]
Watts v. United States | 394 U.S. 705 (1969)
"Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing ...
[17]
True Threats | Constitution Annotated | Library of Congress
Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 388 (1992). In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only true threats are outside ordinary First Amendment protections.
[18]
VIRGINIA V. BLACK - Law.Cornell.Edu
The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and the ...
[19]
Virginia v. Black (2003) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Jan 1, 2009 · “'True threats' encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful ...
[20]
True Threats | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Aug 12, 2023 · A true threat is a statement that frightens or intimidates one or more specified persons into believing that they will be seriously harmed by the speaker.
[21]
True Threats | U.S. Constitution Annotated - Law.Cornell.Edu
In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside ordinary First Amendment protections. ... Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).Missing: doctrine | Show results with:doctrine<|separator|>
[22]
Watts v. United States (1969) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Jan 1, 2009 · Watts v. United States (1969) determined that the First Amendment does not protect true threats but that a threat made against President ...Missing: doctrine | Show results with:doctrine
[23]
[PDF] Elonis v. United States Federal law has criminalized commun
Mens Rea and the First Amendment —. Elonis v. United States. Federal law has criminalized communicating threats in interstate.
[24]
Elonis v. United States (2015) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Jul 2, 2024 · Elonis v. United States (2015) reversed a conviction of a man convicted of making threats via Facebook posts. True threats are not protected ...
[25]
True-Threat Doctrine and Mental State at the Time of Speech
Jun 1, 2016 · The threat assessment literature supports that although some people who make verbal threats ultimately go on to pose a threat, many do not.True Threat Doctrine And... · Questions Of Intent · Verbal Threats And The...
[26]
The mens rea issue: SCOTUS to hear 'true threat' case - FIRE
First Amendment News 363 ... Supreme Court chamber. Decades after the “true threats” ...
[27]
True Threats and the First Amendment: Objective vs. Subjective ...
Jan 8, 2015 · ... courts throughout the nation approach all “true threat” statutes. ... standard will not be to protect speech, but to protect threats.” [31] ...
[28]
[PDF] Elonis v. United States: The Need to Uphold Individual Rights to ...
Court rejected a fully objective intent requirement for true threats, it did not ... Because this hybrid test serves the dual interests of the true threat ...
[29]
[PDF] ELONIS V. UNITED STATES - University of Pittsburgh Law Review
Part V of this Note suggests a “recklessness” standard as the proper mens rea requirement for true threats under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Lastly, Part VI ...
[30]
Elonis v. United States - Harvard Law Review
Nov 10, 2015 · ... Elonis's threats, and concluding that they qualified as “true threats. ... true threat.” See United States v. Kelner, 534 F.2d 1020, 1028 (2d ...
[31]
Searching for Truth in the First Amendment's True Threat Doctrine
Looking at federal law alone, the true threat doctrine has enabled convictions for threats against the president, 110See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 ( ...
[32]
[PDF] United States v. Turner and the True Threats Doctrine
Dec 1, 2011 · The majority rule in the circuit courts is that speech qualifies as a true threat if the speech would be interpreted by an objectively ...
[33]
[PDF] "True Threats" and the Issue of Intent - Chicago Unbound
Sep 12, 2006 · For the first time, the Court in Black defined the term “true threat”;2 however, in providing a definition, the Court created more confusion ...
[34]
[PDF] A Call for Clarity in the Intent Standard of True Threats After Virginia ...
Aug 27, 2015 · before Black, the Ninth Circuit debated adopting an objective test, but the subjective test prevailed. United States v. Romo, 413 F.3d 1044 ...
[35]
[PDF] TRUE THREATS: ESTABLISHMENT OF A MENTAL CULPABILITY ...
In Counterman v. Colorado, the Supreme Court of the United States finally settled on a mental culpability standard for determining when a “true.<|separator|>
[36]
[PDF] “True Threats” and the Issue of Intent - Virginia Law Review
Sep 12, 2006 · Interestingly, most of the articles written after Black are more concerned with the ramifications of the Ninth Circuit's 2002 en banc decision ...
[37]
The cost of an objective 'true threats' approach
Apr 24, 2023 · Colorado, a "true threats" case before the U.S. Supreme Court ... true threat” requires that the speaker have a subjective intent to threaten.Missing: circuit federal
[38]
Docket for 22-138 - Supreme Court
Reply of petitioner Billy Raymond Counterman filed. Main Document Other Certificate of Word Count Proof of Service. Nov 02 2022, DISTRIBUTED for Conference of ...
[39]
COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO | Supreme Court | US Law
Jun 27, 2023 · The statutory findings explain that stalking, harassment, and threats have “an immediate and long-lasting impact on quality of life as well as risks to ...
[40]
Counterman v. Colorado | American Civil Liberties Union
The brief argues that, to ensure adequate breathing room for robust public debate, the Supreme Court should hold that the First Amendment requires the ...
[41]
[PDF] Counterman v. Colorado Multistate Amicus Brief - Final UPDATED
Mar 13, 2023 · The amici States thus urge this Court to reject petitioner's arguments and hold that the First Amendment is not violated when courts assess ...
[42]
Counterman v. Colorado - Oral Arguments - Supreme Court
Counterman v. Colorado Docket Number: 22-138. Date Argued: 04/19/23. Play Audio: Media Formats: MP3, Download. PDF Transcript (PDF), View. To download file:.Missing: 26 | Show results with:26
[43]
Justices hear "true threat" protected speech case - SCOTUSblog
Apr 20, 2023 · The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Wednesday in the case of a Colorado man who was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for stalking.
[44]
[PDF] Should the Model Penal Code's Mens Rea Provisions Be Amended
The MPC's recklessness criterion is a laudable attempt to identify and clarify the minimum culpability presumptively required for criminal liability. It is a ...
[45]
Model Penal Code (MPC) - Penn Law School
(1) No conduct constitutes an offense unless it is a crime or violation under this Code or another statute of this State. ... criminal law or the law governing ...
[46]
Mens Rea: An Overview of State-of-Mind Requirements for Federal ...
Jul 7, 2021 · ... reckless" or "reckless disregard." As the definition suggests, criminal recklessness under federal law generally requires subjective ...
[47]
Internet surveillance, regulation, and chilling effects online
May 26, 2017 · Though notions of self-censorship in the face of coercive threats ... online; even outstripping a personal legal threat. And in the ...<|separator|>
[48]
https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/fear-of-speaking-out-online-data-and-contentions-about-self-censorship/
[49]
Self-Censorship: The Chilling Effect and the Heating Effect
Aug 11, 2024 · If a law deters people from verbally threatening others, for example, it's presumably doing exactly what we want it to do. CEs involve ...
[50]
Supreme Court establishes higher standard for 'true threat ... - FIRE
Jun 29, 2023 · The Court held the government must prove a speaker acted with recklessness in order to convict them for allegedly threatening speech.
[51]
Talking Points - Elonis v. U.S. - United States Courts
A perceived threat can be just as emotionally damaging as a real threat. In light of that, the Government may legitimately prohibit such threatening statements.Missing: test | Show results with:test
[52]
[PDF] Understanding the Counterman v. Colorado Supreme Court Decision
In the Counterman decision, the Supreme. Court acknowledged that speech is a constitutionally protected right, but speech that is a “true threat” is not ...
[53]
[PDF] Stalking Victimization, 2019 - Bureau of Justice Statistics
stalking laws changed under the Violence Against ... BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable statistics on crime and justice systems in the United ...Missing: toll | Show results with:toll
[54]
The Impact of Stalking and Its Predictors: Characterizing the Needs ...
Stalking is a crime with varied and severe psychological, physical, and ... Psychological Impact and Substance Abuse. The psychological impacts of ...
[55]
Facing the Shadows: A Comprehensive Look at Stalking
Jan 10, 2025 · Research indicates that 69% of female and 80% of male stalking survivors have received threats of physical violence. Such threats can create an ...<|separator|>
[56]
[PDF] Stalking Fact Sheet
... Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings ... Stalking is a crime under the laws of the 50 states,. District of ...
[57]
How Stalking Became Free Speech: Counterman v. Colorado and ...
Jul 28, 2023 · The decision in Counterman v. Colorado, 10 which effectively established a First Amendment right to stalk, was authored by Justice Elena Kagan for a 7–2 court.
[58]
[PDF] Stalking Victimization in the United States - Department of Justice
Among stalking victims, the most common type of violent crime experienced in con junction with stalking was to be hit, slapped, or knocked down (12.3%). About 6 ...Missing: toll | Show results with:toll
[59]
[PDF] true threats, public safety, and free speech
May 7, 2025 · Many scholars expected the Supreme Court's Counterman decision to significantly reshape true threat law, undermining public safety while ...
[60]
[PDF] THE IMPACT OF COUNTERMAN V. COLORADO ON STALKING ...
Apr 15, 2025 · Colorado, which held that in order to find liability for true threat crimes the state or plaintiff must prove the defendant's subjective intent ...
[61]
[PDF] THE SIGNIFICANCE OF COUNTERMAN V. COLORADO
TRUE THREATS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT ... Counterman v. Colorado, 143 S. Ct. 2106 (2023) (alterations in original). 38 ...
[62]
Counterman v. Colorado: “True threats” prosecutions require mens ...
Sep 14, 2023 · The Court reversed Counterman's conviction and remanded the case, because Colorado had not been required to show “any awareness on his part that ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
[63]
Free speech and voter intimidation after Counterman v. Colorado
Jul 7, 2023 · Does the First Amendment impose a subjective or an objective true threats standard? In other words, does a speaker have to issue a threat with a ...
[64]
[PDF] True Threats to First Amendment Protections in the Age of Voter ...
Feb 25, 2025 · Wohl, however, the United States District Court for the. Southern District of New York confronted a direct conflict between voter protection ...
[65]
The Cost of Confusion: Amending the True Threats Doctrine in a ...
Apr 16, 2025 · In Counterman, however, the Court held that a speaker must be subjectively aware of a substantial risk that their words would be perceived as ...
[66]
Counterman v. Colorado - United States Courts
... prosecuting potential threats in a social media context. It was followed by ... U.S. dealing with a social media post that some thought was a threat ...
[67]
https://lawfaremedia.org/article/the-supreme-court-s-counterman-decision-explained
[68]
Peo v Counterman - Colorado Court of Appeals Decisions - Justia Law
Jun 13, 2024 · Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the case for a new trial. On retrial, the court should instruct the jury ...
[69]
Court Opinions: Colorado Supreme Court Reverses Stalking Ruling ...
May 12, 2025 · The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the court erred in granting Chapman's motion and reversed the court's ruling.Missing: retrial | Show results with:retrial
[70]
[PDF] SUMMARY February 6, 2025 2025COA15 No. 23CA1927, People v ...
Feb 6, 2025 · In Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), the United. States Supreme Court held that courts must consider a defendant's. First Amendment ...
[71]
[PDF] Supreme Court Case No. 24SA226 - Colorado Judicial Branch
Whether the district court erred by expanding Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), to require proof of a reckless mens rea.
[72]
the impact of counterman v. colorado on stalking prosecutions in idaho
Colorado, which held that in order to find liability for true threat crimes the state or plaintiff must prove the defendant's subjective intent to threaten the ...
[73]
John Doe (2024-03) Juvenile Under Eightee - Idaho Supreme Court
Jul 17, 2025 · It is the “true” nature of the threat that separates a real possibility of violence from jest, exaggeration, or hyperbole. Counterman, 600 U.S. ...
[74]
Threats in the DMs? Unpacking the Supreme Court's Ruling in ...
Jun 30, 2023 · The Supreme Court's decision in Counterman v. Colorado could have implications for the protection of speech online where contextual cues are ...<|separator|>
[75]
[PDF] Counterman v. Colorado: Defining True Threats of Violence under ...
Sep 18, 2023 · Spoiler alert: A five-Justice majority in Counterman concluded that a speaker's state of mind is relevant in the true threats calculus and, more ...
[76]
ACLU Commends Supreme Court Decision to Protect Free Speech ...
Jun 27, 2023 · In Counterman v. Colorado, the court ruled that the First Amendment requires the government to show recklessness in true threats prosecutions.