The right of political free speech is the basis of all liberty. 

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: October 21, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------


** Rutherford Institute Warns Against Giving the Government a Green Light to Chill Political Speech on Social Media
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the government from criminalizing non-threatening political speech ([link removed]) that may be annoying, embarrassing, or unpleasant.

In an amicus brief filed in Counterman v. Colorado ([link removed]) , Rutherford Institute attorneys warned against the ramifications of allowing the government to use overly broad stalking laws to treat expressive activities on social media as threats without having to prove that the messages are both reasonably understood as threatening an illegal act and intended by the speaker as a threat.

“The government must not be given the power to criminalize speech it deems distasteful or annoying,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone’s feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combatting prejudice and intolerance, and the like.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

Under Colorado’s stalking law, a person can be charged with stalking for repeatedly contacting, surveilling or communicating with an individual in such a way that a reasonable person would feel serious emotional distress. In June 2020, the Colorado Supreme Court established new criteria for distinguishing between threatening and protected speech in a social media age. The ruling stated that when an alleged threat is communicated online, courts should consider both the words and the context, factoring in the statement’s role in a broader exchange including any surrounding events, the medium, any anonymity and the private or public nature of the statement, the relationship between the correspondents, and the recipient’s reaction to the statement—however, the Court specifically declined to consider whether the speaker had any intent to actually threaten the recipient.

In 2016, Billy Counterman was charged with stalking after he sent Facebook messages to a Denver musician’s private and public accounts over the course of two years. Although none of the messages explicitly threatened any illegal act or harm, the musician interpreted the messages as threats and sought a protective order against Counterman. Counterman was subsequently found guilty of stalking and sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for his online messages. On appeal, Counterman argued that the Colorado law is overbroad because it does not require speech to be a true threat in order to be criminally punished. However, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled ([link removed]) against Counterman, with the judges analyzing his messages for hidden meanings or subtext.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “true threats” are not protected by the First Amendment, there is growing dissonance about how to determine what constitutes a true threat on social media. In weighing in on the case, Rutherford Institute attorneys warn ([link removed]) that while protecting people from stalking is certainly a valid concern and may be warranted in this particular case, such a broad-reaching law and speculative analysis could empower the government to misinterpret any speaker’s intent and meaning in order to criminalize legitimate political speech that is critical of government officials and representatives.

The amicus brief in Counterman v. Colorado is available at www.rutherford.org ([link removed]) .

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fdont-give-the-government-a-green-light-to-chill-political-speech-on-social-media Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fdont-give-the-government-a-green-light-to-chill-political-speech-on-social-media)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2022 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])