[[link removed]] Ms. Memo: This Week in Women's Rights
July 5, 2023
From the ongoing fight for abortion rights and access, to elections, to the drive for the Equal Rights Amendment, there are a multitude of battles to keep up with. In this weekly roundup, find the absolute need-to-know news for feminists.
Supreme Court Decision on Reckless Speech Will Cost Victims of Stalking and Harassment [[link removed]]
[link removed] [[link removed]]
Women are four times more likely to experience stalking than men, which means that the Court’s decision will have a disproportionate impact on the mostly female victims of stalking and verbal abuse who turn to the legal system for protection. (iStock / Getty Images Plus)
BY MICHELLE ONELLO | The Supreme Court issued a ruling on June 27 in Counterman v. Colorado, holding that a speaker’s subjective intention must be considered when determining whether speech is a “true threat” and thus punishable notwithstanding the First Amendment. The decision requires that a speaker must have been aware of the “threatening character” of the speech but delivered it anyway, and was thus reckless in their actions. The holding will limit protections for victims of stalking, verbal abuse and online harassment and increase the burden on prosecutors who must now provide evidence of the speaker’s state of mind.
After a surprise holding earlier this month in a voting rights case, Allen v. Milligan, where Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh sided with the three liberal justices to find that Alabama’s voting map was racially gerrymandered, another interesting alignment found Justice Kagan writing the Counterman opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh and Jackson. Justice Sotomayor filed a separate concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined, and Justices Barrett and Thomas joined in a dissenting opinion.
The majority opinion held that the First Amendment protects speech unless the speaker has “some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature.” To secure a criminal conviction, prosecutors must “show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”
The case was an appeal from Billy Raymond Counterman, a Colorado man who sent thousands of unsolicited messages to a local female musician over a period of two years. Though she repeatedly blocked him on social media, he opened new accounts to send messages that she found threatening in their cumulative effect. A jury sentenced Counterman to more than four years in prison for stalking.
In his appeal, Counterman argued that determining whether speech constitutes a true threat must take into account the mental state of the speaker rather than only considering whether a reasonable person would find the speech threatening. Since he never intended his messages to be threatening, he argued that they should be protected by the First Amendment. The Court agreed that Colorado prosecutors should be required to prove that Counterman consciously accepted a substantial risk of inflicting serious harm when he sent his messages.
Lynn Hecht Schafran, senior vice president of Legal Momentum, a legal advocacy organization dedicated to advancing the rights of women and girls, expressed disappointment at the ruling.
“We are disappointed that the Court did not affirm the objective standard for proving true threat and concerned, as both the United States and Colorado warned at oral argument, that any heightened standard would discourage prosecution of true threat stalking cases,” she said. “We are also relieved that the subjective standard the Court adopted was a lower recklessness standard, which will allow victims to educate the court about the context of the stalker’s behavior, explaining why the victim understands as true threat behavior which, to an onlooker, seems harmless.”
(Click here to read more) [[link removed]]
Read more
[link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]]
Supreme Court Strikes Down Affirmative Action—A Blow to Equality and Democracy [[link removed]] Congressional Resolution Condemns Criminalization of Abortion, Contraception and Gender-Affirming Care [[link removed]]
[link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]]
In Traditional Economics, a Few Men Get Rich Quick and Easy—It’s Past Time for *Feminist* Economics [[link removed]] The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Pumping Resources into Promoting Fake Clinics—And Google Is Helping [[link removed]]
What we're reading
Because it's hard to keep up with everything going on in the world right now. Here's what we're reading this week:
*
"Supreme
Court’s
ruling
on
online
harassment
outrages
victims,
advocates"
—
The
Washington
Post
[[link removed]]
*
"One
Black
Family,
One
Affirmative
Action
Ruling,
and
Lots
of
Thoughts”
—
The
New
York
Times
[[link removed]]
[link removed] [[link removed]] Tune in for a new episode of Ms. magazine's podcast, On the Issues with Michele Goodwin on Apple Podcasts [[link removed]] + Spotify [[link removed]] .
In early June 2023, for the second time in two months, Trump was indicted—this time on 37 felony counts for allegedly mishandling sensitive, classified government materials and obstruction of justice. What does this most recent indictment mean for Trump, the 2024 elections, and the future of American democracy as a whole?
We hope you'll listen, subscribe, rate and review today!
[link removed] [[link removed]]
READ THE REST [[link removed]] | GET THE MAGAZINE [[link removed]] | SUPPORT MS. [[link removed]]
[[link removed]]
[link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]]
Enjoy this newsletter? Forward to a friend!
Was this email forwarded to you by a friend? Subscribe [[link removed]] .

Ms. Magazine
1600 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 801
Arlington, VA 22209
United States
If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please
unsubscribe: [link removed] .