‘Stalkers protected,’ US Supreme Court makes it more difficult to prosecute someone making threats

The US Supreme Court just made it more difficult to convict a man of making a violent threat or engaging in stalking on online bullying. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a majority of the court that the prosecutors must prove that the defendant was aware of the threatening nature of his statement. “The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence,” the justice wrote.

The ruling came in a case where a man in Colorado was sentenced to four years in prison for sending threatening messages on Facebook. His lawyers said that the man suffered from mental illness and he never meant to inflict harm on the victim. The man reportedly became obsessed with a singer he never met in the real world, and sent her hundreds of threatening messages.

Online harassment—covered under freedom of speech?

Add WION as a Preferred Source

The biggest question before the court was whether to give priority to anti-stalking laws or to uphold the country’s free speech rights. In a 7-2 decision, Justice Kagan mentioned that it was important “not to create unintended consequences for street protesters or political activists who might say intemperate things in the heat of the moment but mean no real harm.” Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, disagreed with the judgement.

The ruling creates massive uproar

The ruling has sparked a massive uproar among activists, lawyers and victims of stalking and online abuse, who believe it fails to take into account the unique threat that the stalkers pose even if they are not aware of the ensuing consequences of their actions. University of Miami law professor and anti-cyberbullying campaigner Mary Anne Franks wrote in a statement, “The more deluded the stalker, the more protected the stalking.”

Lenora Claire, a television producer turned advocate, was quoted by The Guardian as saying that her phone was blowing up with victims who were “absolutely terrified”.

Watch:Australia says Twitter is top platform for online hate

“If you even get as far as prosecution, you’ve already been through the gauntlet, navigating the restraining order process, convincing law enforcement to take you seriously … Now I’m told that with this new ruling my stalker could have said his intent was not to scare me and the case against him would have been thrown out,” she said.

‘Situation not as bleak as it seems'

According to legal professionals, the situation may not be as bleak as it seems, as the evidence presented in the Colorado case suggests that the defendant, Billy Counterman, would probably be found guilty in a retrial even with the new standard set by the Supreme Court.

Rhonda Saunders, a prosecutor who played a significant role in advocating for a pioneering anti-stalking law in California during the 1990s, stated that a number of states, including California, already had provisions in their laws that aligned with the Supreme Court's decision.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE