The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the stalking conviction of a Colorado man who sent hundreds of unwanted Facebook messages to a female musician, ruling that state prosecutors had not shown that he was aware of the "threatening nature" of his statements.
  • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
    3·
    1 year ago

    They essentially said that the messages he sent were covered under the first amendment. Have you read the messages he sent?

    • Arthur_Leywin@kbin.social
      2·
      1 year ago

      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.

      Not the guy you responded to but god damn… I can’t see that message being interpreted as anything BUT a threat. All I gotta do is declare insanity I guess.

      • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        Those were some of the most tame, to be honest.

        Counterman told two of the women that “people in this position that I’m in right now have been [known] to have gone and killed people. Take nine millimeters and blow their heads off and shit like that. * * * I know where you’re all living.”13 He told another woman that he “ha[d] all your addresses and guess what? You ever heard of a letter bomber? Guess what I’ll be comin at ya with kerosene.”14

        Also

        In March 2011, a grand jury indicted Counterman for violating the federal criminal-threat statute again. 17 This time he was charged with leaving a woman a voicemail saying: “I’m coming back to New York by the way, OK? Maybe this month in March OK. I may be coming back his month or next month. I don’t know which. I’m looking forward to meeting up with you. I will rip your throat out on sight.”18

        Source

        The man had also repeatedly made new accounts to continue messaging women after they blocked him. Multiple times.

    • Neuron@lemm.ee
      1·
      1 year ago

      They didn’t say that at all. They said the standard Colorado is using to convict people is too loose, and could theoretically be used to restrict constitutionally protected speech. They were not ruling on merits on if this speech is protected or not. It probably isn’t. Now the case has been sent back to Colorado, not closed. Colorado can retry him, and it’s quite likely they would win even under the stricter standard. But they can’t try him under a loose standard that could allow for protected speech to be criminalized. This has very little to do with the actual case, and a lot to do with the law that Colorado was using. Most articles written about this are lacking in information and misleading at best, you could find better information on the ruling on scotusblog or the ruling itself.