{"id":9237,"date":"2023-06-29T15:34:12","date_gmt":"2023-06-29T22:34:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237"},"modified":"2023-06-29T15:35:09","modified_gmt":"2023-06-29T22:35:09","slug":"supreme-courts-ruling-on-online-harassment-outrages-victims-advocates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on online harassment outrages victims, advocates"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Tuesday, I noted<\/a> the danger that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Counterman<\/em> v. Colorado<\/em> might be interpreted to require that speech must be classifiable as\u00a0 a “true threat” in all<\/em> stalking cases before a prosecution can go forward. Taylor Lorenz has this article<\/a> in the WaPo with the above title reporting that the effects are being felt already. See below.<\/p>\n

I can understand how the Court went forward with the threats analysis in light of the fact that that was how the decision being reviewed justified the prosecution, and that was how both parties presented it. The Court does not normally rule on issues raised only by amici<\/em> curiae<\/em>, although it does occasionally.<\/p>\n

But there is no<\/em> excuse for not stating explicitly that the Court was not holding or implying that all stalking cases based solely on communications must pass muster as “true threats” rather than the “time, place, or manner” doctrine. That question should have been expressly left for another day.<\/p>\n

The WaPo article notes that within minutes of the ruling, a target of online harassment received a message from one of the tormentors:<\/p>\n

\u201cSCOTUS just ruled that our conversations aren\u2019t harassment as I\u2019ve never threatened you,\u201d read one message [Patrick] Tomlinson shared with The Post. \u201cIt\u2019s just two friends enjoying each other\u2019s company.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tomlinson was outraged. \u201cIt\u2019s beyond irresponsible,\u201d Tomlinson said of the court\u2019s decision. \u201cIt\u2019s a catastrophic ruling for victims of online harassment.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Tuesday, I noted the danger that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Counterman v. Colorado might be interpreted to require that speech must be classifiable as\u00a0 a “true threat” in all stalking cases before a prosecution can go forward. Taylor Lorenz has this article in the WaPo with the above title reporting that the effects are being felt already. See below. I can understand how the Court went forward with the threats analysis in light of the fact that that was how the decision being reviewed justified the prosecution, and that was how both parties presented it. The Court does not normally rule on issues raised only by amici curiae, although it does occasionally. But there is no excuse for not stating explicitly that the Court was not holding or implying that all stalking cases based solely on communications must pass muster as “true threats” rather than the “time, place, or manner” doctrine. That question should have been expressly left for another day.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-first-amendment","category-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court\u2019s ruling on online harassment outrages victims, advocates - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on online harassment outrages victims, advocates - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On Tuesday, I noted the danger that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Counterman v. Colorado might be interpreted to require that speech must be classifiable as\u00a0 a “true threat” in all stalking cases before a prosecution can go forward. Taylor Lorenz has this article in the WaPo with the above title reporting that the effects are being felt already. See below. I can understand how the Court went forward with the threats analysis in light of the fact that that was how the decision being reviewed justified the prosecution, and that was how both parties presented it. The Court does not normally rule on issues raised only by amici curiae, although it does occasionally. But there is no excuse for not stating explicitly that the Court was not holding or implying that all stalking cases based solely on communications must pass muster as “true threats” rather than the “time, place, or manner” doctrine. That question should have been expressly left for another day.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-06-29T22:34:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-06-29T22:35:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on online harassment outrages victims, advocates - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-06-29T22:34:12+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-06-29T22:35:09+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on online harassment outrages victims, advocates\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on online harassment outrages victims, advocates - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on online harassment outrages victims, advocates - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"On Tuesday, I noted the danger that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Counterman v. Colorado might be interpreted to require that speech must be classifiable as\u00a0 a “true threat” in all stalking cases before a prosecution can go forward. Taylor Lorenz has this article in the WaPo with the above title reporting that the effects are being felt already. See below. I can understand how the Court went forward with the threats analysis in light of the fact that that was how the decision being reviewed justified the prosecution, and that was how both parties presented it. The Court does not normally rule on issues raised only by amici curiae, although it does occasionally. But there is no excuse for not stating explicitly that the Court was not holding or implying that all stalking cases based solely on communications must pass muster as “true threats” rather than the “time, place, or manner” doctrine. That question should have been expressly left for another day.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2023-06-29T22:34:12+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-06-29T22:35:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237","name":"Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on online harassment outrages victims, advocates - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-06-29T22:34:12+00:00","dateModified":"2023-06-29T22:35:09+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9237#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on online harassment outrages victims, advocates"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9237"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9237\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9239,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9237\/revisions\/9239"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}