Counterman was convicted under Colorado’s criminal stalking statute for conduct that included sending thousands of messages over two years via social media to a C.W., a local singer-songwriter. Despite C.W. blocking several of his accounts, Counterman continued to contact her through other accounts. The messages included indications he had physically surveilled her and that she should “die.” The Supreme Court will consider whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence. Legal Momentum’s amicus brief, drafted in coordination with the National Crime Victim Law Institute, AEquitas, and the Complex Appellate Litigation Group, explains the real harm caused by such threats to victims of stalking and intimate partner violence and the dynamics of non-physical forms of gender-based violence, including technology-facilitated abuse, that make clear an objective test that takes into account the full context of such threats is necessary and supported by social science research. The brief highlights the impact that an objective would have on survivors’ ability to seek accountability and protection—including reducing the availability of civil protection orders.