Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

6 

COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO 

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

104  (2017)  (citation  omitted).  “Rapid  changes  in  the  dy-
namics  of  communication  and  information  transmission” 
have  led  to  equally  rapid  and  ever-evolving  changes  “in 
what society accepts as proper behavior.”  Ontario v. Quon, 
560 U. S. 746, 759 (2010).  Different corners of the internet 
have  considerably  different  norms  around  appropriate
speech.  Online communication can also lack many normal
contextual clues, such as who is speaking, tone of voice, and 
expression.  Moreover, it is easy for speech made in a one 
context to inadvertently reach a larger audience. 

Without sufficient protection for unintentionally threat-
ening  speech,  a  high  school  student  who  is  still  learning
norms  around  appropriate  language  could  easily  go  to 
prison for sending another student violent music lyrics, or
for  unreflectingly  using  language  he  read  in an  online  fo-
rum.  “[A] drunken joke” in bad taste can lead to criminal 
prosecution.  Perez  v.  Florida,  580  U. S.  1187  (2016) 
(SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in denial of certiorari).  In the 
heat  of  the  moment,  someone  may  post  an  enraged  com-
ment under a news story about a controversial topic.  An-
other person might reply equally heatedly.  In a Nation that 
has never been timid about its opinions, political or other-
wise, this is commonplace. 

Many  of  this  Court’s  true-threats  cases  involve  such 
charged political speech.  See Black, 538 U. S., at 348–349 
(Ku Klux Klan rally); Watts, 394 U. S., at 707 (antiwar pro-
test);  Rogers  v.  United  States,  422  U. S.  35,  41–42,  47–48 
(1975) (Marshall, J., concurring) (opposition to Nixon’s pol-
icies toward China).  Amici give further contemporary ex-
amples of such speech  from across the political spectrum.
See, e.g., Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as 
Amici Curiae 24–29.  Much of this speech exists in a gray
area where it will be quite hard to predict whether a jury 
would find it threatening.  And the ubiquity of such speech 
raises the possibility of highly discretionary enforcement. 

The  burdens  of  overcriminalization  will  fall  hardest  on