Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO 

No. 22–138.  Argued April 19, 2023—Decided June 27, 2023 

From 2014 to 2016, petitioner Billy Counterman sent hundreds of Face-
book  messages  to  C. W.,  a  local  singer  and  musician.    The  two  had 
never met, and C. W. did not respond.  In fact, she tried repeatedly to
block him, but each time, Counterman created a new Facebook account 
and resumed contacting C. W.  Several of his messages envisaged vio-
lent harm befalling her.  Counterman’s messages put C. W. in fear and
upended her daily existence: C. W. stopped walking alone, declined so-
cial engagements, and canceled some of her performances.  C. W. even-
tually contacted the authorities.  The State charged Counterman un-
der a Colorado statute making it unlawful to “[r]epeatedly . . . make[ ] 
any  form  of  communication  with  another  person”  in  “a  manner  that 
would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress 
and does cause that person . . . to suffer serious emotional distress.” 
Colo.  Rev.  Stat.  §18–3–602(1)(c).    Counterman  moved  to  dismiss  the 
charge on First Amendment grounds, arguing that his messages were
not “true threats” and therefore could not form the basis of a criminal 
prosecution.  Following Colorado law, the trial court rejected that ar-
gument under an objective standard, finding that a reasonable person
would consider the messages threatening.  Counterman appealed, ar-
guing that the First Amendment required the State to show not only 
that his statements were objectively threatening, but also that he was 
aware of their threatening character.  The Colorado Court of Appeals 
disagreed and affirmed his conviction.  The Colorado Supreme Court
denied review. 

Held: The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had
some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature, 
but the First Amendment requires no more demanding a showing than 
recklessness.  Pp. 4–14.

(a) The  First  Amendment  permits  restrictions  upon  the content  of