mastodon.lawprofs.org is part of the decentralized social network powered by Mastodon.
A Mastodon Instance for Legal Academics. Please provide your institutional affiliation when registering.

Administered by:

Server stats:

55
active users

Learn more

Caroline Mala Corbin

In , had to balance the risk of chilling useful speech against the risk of letting people terrify & intimidate others w/o consequences

On the one hand, the lack of a subjective requirement for a true threat might chill speech that was rhetorical or joking or art bc speakers could not be sure what a court would conclude about reasonableness and stay silent

Jun 27, 2023, 14:30 · · · Web · 2 · 2

On the other, too high a standard of subjective intent for a true threat unprotected by the Free Speech Clause would allow speakers to terrify their targets and claim lack of sufficent proof that they intended or knew that speech was threatening.

The Court decided on recklessness.

What exactly does recklessness entail? According to , "in the threats context, it means the speaker is aware that others could regard his statements as threatening violence and delivers them anyway."

Kagan notes: "reckless defendants have done more than make a bad mistake. They have consciously accpeted a substantial risk of inflicting serious harm."