There’s a lot going on in the world right now. The headlines are heavy, the pace is relentless, and it’s easy to feel pulled in a thousand directions.
There’s a lot going on in the world right now. The headlines are heavy, the pace is relentless, and it’s easy to feel pulled in a thousand directions. But through it all, we must never forget: crimes against women do not take vacations. They do not pause for election cycles, trending hashtags, or international crises. Violence, stalking, coercion, and abuse continue—even when the world looks away. Our vigilance, advocacy, and outrage must remain steady, because the harm being done to women never takes a sabbatical.
In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a deeply concerning ruling in the case of Counterman v. Colorado — one that will likely impact the safety of women, girls, and all Survivors across the country. Here’s what happened, why it matters, and what we must do next.
1. The Stalker Sent Hundreds of Messages
A man named Billy Counterman sent musician Coles Whalen hundreds of disturbing, unwanted messages through Facebook. Even when she blocked him, he created new accounts.
Some messages said things like:
“Die. Don’t need you.”
Others implied he was watching her.
2. The Victim Was Scared and Altered Her Life
Coles Whalen canceled performances, stopped touring, and moved to feel safer. She reported living in fear for her life. This is the emotional toll stalkers count on.
3. Colorado Convicted Him Using a “Reasonable Person” Standard
Under Colorado law, it didn’t matter if he intended to threaten. If a reasonable person would feel threatened by the messages, it was enough to convict.
4. The Supreme Court Overturned the Conviction
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7–2 in favor of the stalker. They said that prosecutors must now prove that the stalker knew their words were threatening—or at least acted with “reckless disregard” for that possibility.
In plain terms: if the stalker is delusional or claims he didn’t mean to scare the victim, he might walk free.
5. The ACLU Supported the Stalker’s Side
The ACLU argued against the victim, claiming the man’s “free speech” was at risk. They celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling.
In this writer’s opinion:
đź’” In my assessment, the ACLU has not stood firmly for the safety of women and children in years. Their priorities have shifted away from protecting Survivors.
6. This Decision Could Shield Delusional or Mentally Unwell Stalkers
If someone doesn’t understand (or pretends not to understand) that their messages are threatening, this ruling may protect them instead of the victims.
7. This Case Is a Wake-Up Call
This decision shows how outdated laws and narrow interpretations of “intent” can leave Survivors exposed. Women have been raising the alarm about this for years. Now the courts have spoken—and we must respond.
🚨 Call to Action: Advocates, It’s Time to Organize
đź“Ś We must demand updates to state and federal laws to reflect the digital age, where stalking can happen across platforms, anonymously, and relentlessly.
đź“Ś Push for laws that center Survivors’ experience—not the stalker’s excuses.
đź“Ś Speak out about organizations that claim to support human rights but leave women and children behind.
đź“Ś Build coalitions of women-led, Survivor-centered groups to draft new model legislation and train allies.
đź“Ś Refuse to be silenced or sidelined. The safety of women and children is not negotiable.
đź’¬ Final Note:
Women are being told—again—that their fear, their pain, and their safety come second to someone else’s “freedom.”
Not on our watch.
We have the power, the numbers, and the wisdom to rise and rebuild what they are tearing down.
