His conviction was overturned. The United States Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of freedom of expression in an online harassment case, linked to the dumps of threatening messages sent by a fan to the country singer Coles Whalen. By a majority of seven out of nine magistrates, the high court ruled that a cyberstalker could not be prosecuted and convicted if he was unaware of the impact of his messages on their recipient.
“Real threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution”, which guarantees freedom of expression, and “are crimes liable to punishment”, recalls the magistrate Elena Kagan on behalf of the majority. But the accused must “have some understanding of the threatening nature of his statements”, she adds.
Prosecutors do not have to prove that the defendant “intended” to be threatening, just that he “knowingly ignored the risk that his communications could be perceived as threats of violence”, specifies the Court, asking the courts to reopen Billy Counterman’s case.
Thousands of threatening messages
Between 2014 and 2016, this Colorado resident sent thousands of Facebook messages to Coles Whalen. “Die, I don’t need you” or “fuck you forever,” he wrote to her, opening new accounts each time she blocked him. According to the musician’s lawyers, these messages “oscillated between the bizarre, the senseless, the aggressive and the threatening” and “their hostility had only increased over time”.
The young woman had begun to take fright, to cancel concerts. “I was terrified of being followed and attacked, I had no choice but to put my career on hold,” she said in a statement. In 2016, she decided to file a complaint and Billy Counterman, who had already been prosecuted for harassment, was arrested.
After being sentenced to four and a half years in prison, he appealed, citing the First Amendment to the US Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression. Billy Counterman “suffers from a mental illness and thought that (the singer) corresponded with him through other sites. He did not understand that he was threatening and did not intend to be, ”had pleaded his lawyers.
Complicated victim protection
Associations of journalists or defense of civil rights, such as the powerful ACLU, had sided with him, fearing a risk of “unfounded prosecutions” or “censorship” if the courts were content to assess the feelings of the recipients of the messages.
But associations fighting against domestic violence had warned that this reading of the law could complicate the protection of victims. During the hearing, the Colorado representative recalled that 90% of feminicides were preceded by episodes of online harassment.
2023-06-27 18:55:00
#Supreme #Court #rules #favor #cyberstalker #country #singer
