SCOTUS just overturned a criminal conviction of a man stalking a woman.

[Progressive Lawyer]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-sides-man-143840756.html

[Ocelot II]

1. Kagan wrote the opinion; Thomas and Barrett dissented.

[Progressive Lawyer]

2. The Biden Admin supported upholding the Colorado conviction.

[mobeau69]

3. Yep, WTF?

[NowISeetheLight]

6. Wow

I'm actually agreeing the Thomas and Barrett? WTH!!!

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."

[Freethinker65]

4. So what IS the remedy for harassing threats with no intention of carrying them out?

If free speech entitles you to harass and make threats (as long as you don't intend to act on them), what can the person that is receiving the harassment do? I am assuming a charge of harassment and restraining order would be ok?

[Chainfire]

5. So it is free speech to send threatening letters, unless the receiver is a government official?

[Elessar Zappa]

7. There's gotta be more to this.

Two conservatives dissented.

[Zeitghost]

9. Sometimes

Issues and ideas do not always fall neatly into the preset 2 party system we have.

I'm going to have to dig into this case a bit for the particulars as this 7-2 vote split in an interesting way.

[Elessar Zappa]

11. I'm just talking generally.

For me, when I see three liberals on one side and two conservatives on the other, I assume I’ll agree with the liberals. I’m gonna have to read up on this case.

[Zeitghost]

12. Same here

n/t

[Ocelot II]

14. There is. The case has to do with what standard should be used to determine

whether communications can be regarded as unprotected threatening speech. It was vacated and remanded for further proceedings, meaning the defendant could be retried using the Court's "recklessness" standard. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf

[sl8]

8. Opinion analysis - Amy Howe

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/justices-throw-out-colorado-mans-stalking-conviction-in-first-amendment-dispute/

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court, with an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote an opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, in which she agreed with the result that the court reached but not all of its reasoning. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion and joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

[...]

Kagan declined to adopt the objective standard proposed by Colorado, and on which the state courts relied to convict Counterman. Using an objective standard, she explained, that looks only at “how reasonable observers would construe a statement in context,” would also suppress speech that was not a true threat, because people would not want to run the risk that their non-threatening speech would be misunderstood, leading to jail time.

A subjective standard is the proper test, Kagan concluded – but which one? She concluded that a recklessness standard, which for cases involving true threats “means that a speaker is aware ‘that others could regard his statements as’ threatening violence and ‘delivers them anyway,’” is most appropriate. Such a test, she reasoned, strikes the proper balance between avoiding suppressing non-threatening speech, on the one hand, and on the other hand allowing states to effectively protect “against the profound harms” that can flow from true threats.

Kagan acknowledged that, “[a]s with any balance, something is lost on both sides: The rule we adopt today is neither the most speech-protective nor the most sensitive to the dangers of true threats. But in declining one of those two alternative paths,” she continued, “something more important is gained: Not ‘having it all’ — because that is impossible — but having much of what is important on both sides of the scale.”

[...]

[LiberalFighter]

10. It is important to include excerpts.

[Ocelot II]

13. The case was vacated and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings

consistent with the court's decision. The guy isn't off the hook; he could be retried using the "recklessness" standard for deciding whether his communications constituted threats not protected by the First Amendment. Read the opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf