Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

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

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

First  Amendment  concerns  at  issue.  In  such  cases,  reck-
lessness is amply sufficient.  And I would stop there.  There 
is simply no need to reach out in this stalking case to deter-
mine whether anything more than recklessness is needed 
for punishing true threats generally. 

II 
Lest  there  be  any  doubt,  the  First  Amendment  stakes
around the definition of “true threats” are high indeed.  The 
First Amendment’s mantle covers speech that is “vitupera-
tive,  abusive  and  inexact.”  Watts,  394  U. S.,  at  708.    “It 
might be tempting to dismiss” seemingly low-value speech
“as unworthy of . . . robust First Amendment protections.” 
Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) 
(slip op., at 11).  Yet “[m]ost of what we say to one another 
lacks  ‘religious,  political,  scientific,  educational,  journal-
istic, historical, or artistic value’ (let alone serious value), 
but it is still sheltered from Government regulation.”  Ste-
vens,  559  U. S.,  at  479  (emphasis  deleted).    First  Amend-
ment vigilance is especially important when speech is dis-
turbing, frightening, or painful, because the undesirability 
of such speech will place a heavy thumb in favor of silencing 
it.  In  response,  the  Court  has  upheld  First  Amendment
rights in the context of gruesome animal cruelty videos, id., 
at 472; cross burning, Virginia v. Black, 538 U. S. 343, 347– 
348  (2003);  hateful  rhetoric  in  protests  of  the  funerals  of 
fallen  soldiers,  Snyder  v.  Phelps,  562  U. S.  443,  448–449, 
458 (2011); and computer-generated images of child pornog-
raphy,  Ashcroft  v.  Free  Speech  Coalition,  535  U. S.  234, 
239–240, 258 (2002). 

The  risk  of  overcriminalizing  upsetting  or  frightening
speech has only been increased by the internet.  Our soci-
ety’s  discourse  occurs  more  and  more  in  “the  ‘vast  demo-
cratic forums of the Internet’ in general, and social media 
in particular.”  Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U. S. 98,