The US Supreme Court is set to hear a free speech case that tests when statements are considered true threats not protected by the First Amendment.

The justices are being asked in Counterman v. Colorado if the government has to show at trial that the speaker knew or intended the statement to be threatening in nature to secure a conviction, or if it’s enough to show an objective “reasonable person” would view that statement as a threat of violence.

At the center of the dispute scheduled to be argued on April 19 is Billy Counterman, who was charged with stalking a Colorado musician after he sent her Facebook messages over the course of two years that frightened her. Counterman claims his messages were protected speech because they weren’t true threats.

Elena Cordonean of Southwestern Law School joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss why the court should adopt a dual standard that considers the context of the speech and the speaker’s intent.

Special thanks to Southwestern professor Norman Garland

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.