Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 50

8 

COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

In  sum,  our  First  Amendment  precedent  does  not  set  a 
“baseline ban on an objective standard.”  Ante, at 10.  Prec-
edent  does  more  than  allow  an  objective  test  for  true 
threats; on balance, it affirmatively supports one. 

B 
The Court’s analysis also gives short shrift to how an ob-
jective  test  works  in  practice.    Two  key  features  of  true 
threats already guard against the risk of silencing protected
speech.  Thus, there is no need to go further and adopt the 
Court’s heightened standard.

First, only a very narrow class of statements satisfies the 
definition  of  a  true  threat.  To  make  a  true  threat,  the 
speaker must express “an intent to commit an act of unlaw-
ful  violence.”  Black,  538  U. S.,  at  359  (emphasis  added).
Speech that is merely “offensive,” “ ‘poorly chosen,’ ” or “un-
popular”  does  not  qualify.    Brief  for  Petitioner  31,  36,  42. 
The statement must also threaten violence “to a particular 
individual  or  group  of  individuals”—not  just  in  general. 
Black, 538 U. S., at 359.  These tight guardrails distinguish
true  threats  from  public-figure  defamation,  the  model  for
the  Court’s  rule.    While  defamatory  statements  can  cover
an infinite number of topics, true threats target one: unlaw-
ful violence. 

Second, the statement must be deemed threatening by a 
reasonable listener who is familiar with the “entire factual 
context” in which the statement occurs.  State v. Taveras, 
342 Conn. 563, 572, 271 A. 3d 123, 129 (2022).  This inquiry
captures (among other things) the speaker’s tone, the audi-
ence, the medium for the communication, and the broader 
exchange in which the statement occurs.3  Each considera-
tion helps weed out protected speech from true threats. 

—————— 

3 Colorado’s test provides a good example.  Juries must apply the fol-
lowing nonexhaustive factors to determine whether a statement is a true 
threat: “(1) the statement’s role in a broader exchange, if any, including