Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 45

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

3 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

subjective ones.  So an objective test “complements the ex-
planation  for  excluding  threats  of  violence  from  First 
Amendment protection in the first place.”  United States v. 
Jeffries, 692 F. 3d 473, 480 (CA6 2012). 

II 
The Court agrees that “[t]he existence of a threat depends
not  on  ‘the  mental  state  of  the  author,’  but  on  ‘what  the 
statement conveys’ to the person on the other end.”  Ante, 
at  6.  And  it  acknowledges  that  “[w]hen  the  statement  is
understood as a true threat, all the harms that have long
made  threats  unprotected  naturally  follow.”  Ibid.  None-
theless,  the  Court  holds  Colorado’s  statute  unconstitu-
tional.  Why?    Because  the  Court  installs  a  prophylactic 
buffer zone to avoid chilling protected speech—a buffer zone
that protects true threats unless the speaker “consciously 
disregarded  a  substantial  risk  that  his  communications
would be viewed as threatening violence.”  Ante, at 1, 4–5. 
That reasoning is flawed. 

A 
The Court’s first error is awarding true threats “pride of
place among unprotected speech.”  Elonis v. United States, 
575 U. S. 723, 767 (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting).  We have 
held that nearly every category of unprotected speech may
be regulated using an objective test.  In concluding other-
wise, the Court neglects certain cases and misreads others. 
Start  with  fighting  words—a  category  of  unprotected
speech that the Court skips past.  Fighting words are “per-
sonally abusive epithets” that are “inherently likely to pro-
voke violent reaction.”  Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 20 
(1971).  Under  our  precedent,  legislatures  may  regulate
fighting  words  even  when  the  speaker  does  not  intend  to 
provoke the listener (or does not recklessly disregard that
possibility).  Chaplinsky,  315  U. S.,  at  572–573  (rejecting 
First  Amendment  challenge  to  a  state  law  punishing