The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Supreme Court says a conviction for online threats violated 1st Amendment

Prosecutors must show that a person responsible for threats understood the threatening nature of that speech, justices say

The Supreme Court building in Washington on Tuesday. (Minh Connors/The Washington Post)
6 min

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed the conviction of a man who made extensive online threats to a stranger, saying free speech protections require prosecutors to prove the stalker was aware of the threatening nature of his communications.

In a 7-2 ruling with Justice Elena Kagan writing for the majority, the court emphasized that true threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. But to guard against a chilling effect on non-threatening speech, the majority said, states must prove that a criminal defendant has acted recklessly, meaning that he “disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”