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

2. Groff v. DeJoy: What counts as an “undue hardship” under Title VII’s requirement that employers accommodate employees religion unless it imposes an undue hardship.

3. Counterman v. Colorado: what kind of an intent must a speaker have for their speech to qualify as a true threat unprotected by the First Amendment Free Speech Clause

#SupremeCourt #equality #truethreat #unduehardship #freeSpeech #religion #Sabbath #FirstAmendment #speech #religion

The added twist in Counterman v. Colorado is that the Supreme Court has adopted an orginalist approach to unprotected categories of speech, arguing an unprotected category must date to the founding to be unprotected.

#FediLaw #LawFedi #law #LawProf #orginalism #freespeech #speech #FirstAmendment #TrueThreat #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt

Note there are different levels of intent: specific intent, knowledge, recklessness

Did he intend to frighten his target (specific intent)

or know full well that his comments would terrify (knowledge) or

suspected that they would but said them anyway (recklessness).

#LawFedi #FediLaw #law #lawprof #FreeSpeech Speech #TrueThreat #FirstAmendment