Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the line between true threats of violence punishable as crimes and free speech protected by the First Amendment.

Beginning in 2010, Billy Counterman sent thousands of messages to singer-songwriter Coles Whalen that foreboded her death and followed her activities.

Although the decision left Counterman vulnerable to conviction on retrial, some criticized it for declaring that stalking was protected by the First Amendment.

[2] Although the First Amendment protects free speech, there are exceptions for incitement, defamation, obscenity, fighting words, and true threats.

[5] Beginning in 2010, Billy Counterman sent thousands of Facebook messages to singer-songwriter Coles Whalen over a six-year period.

"[14] Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked what if a professor gives a lecture "about just how vicious it was to be in a Jim Crow South and puts up behind them on a screen a picture of a burning cross and reads aloud some threats of lynching that were made at the time" and Black students interpret the lecture as a physical threat "because they don't understand it"?

[8][15] "The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence," Kagan wrote.

[16] Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, writing that the decision "unjustifiably grants true threats preferential treatment"[8] and that, because the majority decided it as a First Amendment matter, the standard would apply to civil cases as well as criminal.

Justice Thomas joined her dissent and separately wrote to address the majority's "surprising and misplaced reliance" on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case that raised the requirement for public figures to claim libel.

"[19] Annie Seifullah, a civil litigator and cyberbullying survivor, said, "As the dust settles, I believe we'll find that a lot of egregious behavior will still fall under this new standard.

"[19] She wrote that "the Supreme Court has declared stalking to be protected by the First Amendment" and that the decision "elevates stalkers into free speech heroes".

In a world rife with misunderstandings and miscommunications, people would be chilled from speaking altogether if they could be jailed for failing to predict how their words would be received.