Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

7 

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

certain groups.  A jury’s determination of when angry hy-
perbole  crosses  the  line  will  depend  on  amorphous  norms 
around language, which will vary greatly from one discur-
sive  community  to  another.  Juries’  decisions  will  reflect 
their  “background  knowledge  and  media  consumption.” 
Minnesota  Voters  Alliance  v.  Mansky,  585  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2018)  (slip  op.,  at  17).  “[S]peakers  whose  ideas  or  views 
occupy the fringes of our society have more to fear, for their
violent and extreme rhetoric, even if intended simply to con-
vey an idea or express displeasure, is more likely to strike
a  reasonable  person  as  threatening.”    United  States  v. 
White, 670 F. 3d 498, 525 (CA4 2012) (Floyd, J., concurring 
in part and dissenting in part).  Members of certain groups,
including  religious  and  cultural  minorities,  can  also  use 
language that is more susceptible to being misinterpreted 
by outsiders.  And unfortunately yet predictably, racial and 
cultural  stereotypes  can  also  influence  whether  speech  is 
perceived as dangerous.  See, e.g., A. Dunbar, C. Kubrin, & 
N. Scurich, The Threatening Nature of “Rap” Music, 22 J.
Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 281, 281–282, 288–290 (2016). 

On the other hand, the internet has also made stalking 
and harassment even easier.  Stalking can be devastating 
and dangerous.  See Brief for First Amendment Scholars as 
Amici  Curiae  7–8.  Lives  can  be  ruined,  and  in  the  most 
tragic  instances,  lives are  lost.    Ibid.    Harassers  can  hide 
behind  online  anonymity  while  tormenting  others.  This 
happens in the context of intimate relationships and it hap-
pens with strangers.  Overly constraining our society’s abil-
ity to respond to stalking would come at a real cost.  For the 
reasons  given,  however,  a  mens  rea  standard  for  true 
threats would not hinder stalking prosecutions.  See supra,
at 3–5. 

Even isolated threatening speech can do real harm.  Such 
speech not only disrupts lives, it can silence the speech of
others who become afraid to speak out.  A mens rea require-