How does this make it harder? https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-counterman-v-colorado https://www.us

How does this make it harder? https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-counterman-v-colorado https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a... This says "the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten the victim must be established based on a showing of (at least) recklessness". I think many could argue that speech which wasn't intentionally intended to harm should not be interpreted as such, and I don't see where this makes intentional harm less prosecutable. Everyone's opinion is different, including judges of course, and I'm not saying yours is wrong, but I'd like to hear more about why you think this makes "things" harder.