Later this week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case involving the First Amendment and whether or not it protects messages sent on social media. The messages have already been used to convict a man of stalking, but he says the First Amendment protects the action that put him in prison.
The man bringing the case before the Supreme Court is Billy R. Counterman, who was arrested in May 2016 and eventually convicted of stalking in connection to Facebook messages he sent to a woman over the course of several years.
Counterman never received a response from the woman he was communicating with, a Colorado-based singer and songwriter. The woman inevitably pressed charges, and after being convicted, he was sentenced to 4 ½ years in prison.
However, Counterman is arguing that the messages he began sending the singer in 2010 were protected under the First Amendment. Going further, he says the Colorado law used to convict him is flawed, partly due to it taking into consideration the speaker’s intent and the recipient’s interpretation of their speech.
Among the messages sent by Counterman included asking about her car, a “white Jeep,” making comments about seeing her in person, and at least one message in which he told her to “die” and “F— off permanently,” the National Association of Attorney Generals shared.
“How can I take your interest in me seriously if you keep going back to my rejected existence?” one of Counterman’s messages asked.
Another said, “Five years on Facebook. Only a couple physical sightings.”
Still, Counterman claims that the law used in his conviction gives courts the authority to “criminalize misunderstandings,” as he never intended to threaten the woman.
The messages continued, despite the woman’s attempts to block him multiple times, an effort that failed due to him making new accounts and sending messages again.
Eventually, the woman was granted an order for protection against Counterman out of fear. Court records shared that she was so scared, she went as far as to cancel performances because she was afraid he would attend them, court records state.
The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and expression. However, it does not protect threats of violence, or true threats, which the high court has defined as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the case on Wednesday.
Related
Related
