The Supreme Court heard a free speech case on Wednesday and sounded ready

that it could

making it much more difficult to prosecute alleged online stalkers who repeatedly send unwanted and harassing messages that upset and frighten the victim.

The question is whether prosecutors have to prove that the online stalker made real threats.

Coles Whalen, a musician from Colorado, said she stopped performing in public after receiving threatening messages from a man she had never met for more than two years.

“The thousands of unstable messages sent to me were life-threatening and life-aging,” she said. “I was terrified that I was being followed and could be hurt at any moment; I had no choice but to distance myself from my dream, a music career that I had worked very hard on.”

Some messages invited

Unpleasant

here

Unpleasant

“come and drink coffee.” Others referred to seeing her in public. A few sounded angry. “Die. I don’t need you.”

She told friends that the messages were “weird” and “creepy,” and she repeatedly blocked them on Facebook. But the reports continued and she complained to the police.

Billy Ray Counterman was charged with stalking and causing emotional distress. His lawyers said he was “delusional” and suffered from mental illness, but he had no intention of threatening Whalen.

He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to four and a half years in prison, in part because he was previously convicted of sending threats online.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal, and most of the justices’ conservatives and liberals sounded sympathetic to his First Amendment claim.

Washington attorney John P. Elwood, representing Counterman, urged the court to rule that prosecutors must prove that the stalking defendant had a “specific intent” to threaten the recipient of his messages.

He argued that the First Amendment protects free speech except when a person makes a “genuine threat” of violence. In this case, he said, the government was under no obligation to show that Counterman intended to threaten the musician.

“Punishing misunderstanding is especially dangerous at a time when so much communication is happening on social media,” he said.

Colorado Atty. General Philip J. Weiser argued that the danger flows the other way. cyber

–

stalking can do “life-altering damage,” he said.

“Demanding specific intentions in threatening stalker cases would immunize those detached from reality,” Weiser added. “It would also allow devious stalkers to escape responsibility by insisting that they meant nothing by their harmful statements.”

In Counterman’s case, “Whalen didn’t know what he looked like. Should you wait for the person to use force?” he said.

The lawyers

Are

differed on the impact of a statement requiring evidence of the speaker’s intent. Elwood said it wouldn’t affect many cases, but Colorado’s attorney said it would make prosecution more difficult.

The court will make a decision in the Counterman v. Colorado.