Counterman v. Colorado

-

Counterman v. Colorado

Unbiased Case Analysis:

In 2014 Billy Counterman began sending Coles Whalen “weird” and “creepy” messages on Facebook. At the time Whalen was a local and rising musician in Denver, Colorado. Whalen attempted to block Counterman, but he would make new accounts to keep sending her messages. This cycle lasted for years until Colorado eventually prosecuted Counterman on charges of stalking and harassment. Counterman argued the First Amendment protected his right to send the messages to Whalen. However, the trial court found him guilty. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

            The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Counterman. The Court found that the trial court failed to use the correct test in Counterman’s case. The Court focused on what test should be used to determine whether a statement is a true threat. Colorado has an objective test to decide on cases of true threats. Essentially, Colorado determines whether a reasonable person would consider the statement a true threat. The Court disagreed and ruled that a subjective test is required. The Court opted to use the recklessness standard. The prosecution must prove that the defendant understood his statement could be perceived as threatening yet made them anyway. Counterman’s case will be sent back down to the state’s court to be retried using the new standard.

Personal Perspective:

            I do not like the Court’s ruling. It seems to do more to protect true threats rather than prosecute them. It is true that using an objective test might lead to more free speech being prosecuted as true threats. However, the subjective test seems to give excessive power to the defense. Counterman’s lawyers argued he suffers from mental health illnesses which contributed to his lack of awareness of his actions. However, even if Counterman has some legitimate mental health illnesses, it does not mean his statements were not true threats to Whalen. His mental health illnesses would be mitigating factors and might constitute a different sentence.

Media Critique and Analysis:

            The case received moderate attention from the media. Notable outlets such as Fox News neglected to report on the case. Outlets across the political spectrum reported the case neutrally or disagreeing with the Court’s decision. Left leaning outlets such as CNN saw the Court’s decision as a major loss to prosecuting online harassment in an increasingly digital world. Right leaning outlets such as the National Review leaned against the Court’s decision. The media coverage suggested that the Court's decision was unpopular with many people. The unpopularity of the decision is surprising considering the 7-2 ruling. Both conservative and liberal justices ruled in favor of Counterman.

Sources:

Counterman v. Colorado | Oyez

Supreme Court clarifies when online harassment can be prosecuted | CNN Politics

Today’s Ruling in Counterman v. Colorado | National Review

Justices throw out Colorado man’s stalking conviction in First Amendment dispute - SCOTUSblog

Comments

  1. William RileyMarch 14, 2024 at 4:28 PM

    Hello Ian thanks for bringing attention to this. I agree with you that the court should do more to err on the side of protecting people. You can say whatever you want, but continuing to message and harass someone that has attempted to break contact with you should hold the same protection and privacy laws as in-person stalking. We are basically am extention of the internet and the internet is an extention of real life. We just need laws that make it illegal to do obvious internet stalking and harassment on the personal level. Choosing to engage with idiots on the internet is another thing though, haha. Great post man.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nina PMarch 27, 2024 at 2:10 PM

    Hey Ian, great post. Before reading I had never heard of this case but did more research after reading cause I was quite honestly shocked at the outcome. It must be acknowledged that I may be biased as a female who has been stalked in the past however, its clear his messages were threating and frankly, disturbing. "A true threat is determined by the recipient’s perception, not the speaker’s intent", how else should Whalen perceive messages he wanted her to die or be killed? It's unfortunate that the case turned out the way that it did especially after previous courts found him guilty. I agree with your assessment that Counterman having mental health issues doesn't mean his statements (threats) were not true. Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Javier MolinaApril 15, 2024 at 6:56 AM

    Hello Ian, this is a really interesting but disappointing case. I'm surprised that the court decided to that a subjective test would have been more appropriate than an objective test. Given that many court cases center on objective interpretations of the law since subjectivity is really a personal matter. It will likely also set a dangerous precedent that stalking and threating, repeating, and unwanted advancements/wording are constitutionally protected.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-
Image
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Unbiased case analysis:             Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.             The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of ...
Read more

Biden v. Nebraska

-
Image
Unbiased Case Analysis:             During his presidential run Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. He kept his word and used executive action to enact his promise. Nebraska and five other states challenged Biden and his forgiveness program. They argued on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court stepped in to decide on it.             The Court decided 6-3 in favor of Nebraska. The Court found that the Secretary of education does not authority under the HEROES Act “…to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in dept principal and affect nearly all borrowers.” Most of the justices cited the major questions doctrine as their reaso...
Read more

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

-
Image
For my first blog post I am going to examine one of the latest cases SCOTUS ruled on: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. Unbiased Case Analysis: Deborah Laufer is a disabled woman who checks hotel websites to see if they provide accessibility information required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sued Acheson Hotels after discovering one of their hotel websites failed to provide accessibility information. The district court dismissed her case since she did not plan to visit the hotel. Therefore, she would suffer no injury from the hotel’s lack of accessibility information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision determining that a lack of intent to visit the hotel did not excuse Laufer from injury. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case and rule on it. The Court unanimously voted to vacate the case. The Court found the case to be moot which means it has lost its relevance which no longer neces...
Read more