@GottaLaff Lisa Graves on the Supreme Court's opinion on the Counterman V Colorado case.

"American people need to have 21st century rules to deal with 21st century cyberstalking, stalking, harassment and that type of threat. This is not about core 1st Amendment rights. People don't have the right to harass other people and threaten them."

#SupremeCourt #1stAmendment #stalking #CyberStalking #harassment #OnlineThreats #Facebook #Counterman Part 2
Whole clip https://youtu.be/wxylvu3bamo here

The Court decided on recklessness.

What exactly does recklessness entail? According to #Counterman, "in the threats context, it means the speaker is aware that others could regard his statements as threatening violence and delivers them anyway."

Kagan notes: "reckless defendants have done more than make a bad mistake. They have consciously accpeted a substantial risk of inflicting serious harm."

#SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #TrueThreat #speech #FreeSpeech #law #lawFedi #lawFed #FediLaw

On the other, too high a standard of subjective intent for a true threat unprotected by the Free Speech Clause would allow speakers to terrify their targets and claim lack of sufficent proof that they intended or knew that speech was threatening.

#SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #FreeSpeech #Speech #FirstAmendment #TrueThreat #Counterman #law #FediLaw #LawFedi

A true threat is speech that threatens a specific person and that a reasonable person would deem intimidating. This is not controversial.

What is uncertain is what state of mind (mens rea) the speaker must have

Must the speaker have the specific intent to frighten?

Must he know that his words will frighten?

Is it enough that he is recklessly indifferent to the frightening effect?

Or are none of these required?

That is the question that #Counterman might answer

#law #lawFedi #Fedilaw