Stalking or Protected Speech?

The SCOTUS ruled Tuesday on Counterman v Colorado. I had to read a bit about this case to get a comprehensive understanding of the decision. My best attempt at a TLDR is that the court found it is more important that the person making threats understands them to be threats than that a reasonable person would feel threatened by the communication.

In this particular case a man sent thousands of unwanted and unreciprocated messages to a local musician. She repeatedly blocked him, but the messages continued. They included information he only could have known by following her in real life. He was convicted and sentenced to 4 1/2 years. It was thrown out by the SCOTUS because he did not understand that the communication was unwanted and frightening.

Civil liberties groups who agree with the decision argue that anyone could claim they feel afraid of any communication, which in turn could lead to reporters being charged trying to contact public officials for statements and that “political hyperbole can often be mistaken as a genuine threat” (ACLU)

Those opposed to the decision including victims rights organizations argue that intent does not matter to the victim being psychologically terrorized, and that “We're living at a time of rising demonization and of threats of physical violence and actual physical violence” (Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser)

Do you agree with the decision?