40 likes | 66 Views
“ T rue threats”. After Watts v. United States , to determine if a unprotected “true threat” has occurred, SCT looks to: Content of Speech – what did speaker say? Context of Speech – in what circumstances does speech occur? Were Bruce’s statements (p. 79, problem 1) true threats?.
E N D
“True threats” • After Watts v. United States, to determine if a unprotected “true threat” has occurred, SCT looks to: • Content of Speech – what did speaker say? • Context of Speech – in what circumstances does speech occur? • Were Bruce’s statements (p. 79, problem 1) true threats?
Some issues with threats cases • Some threats cases are easy. But many cases are highly dependent on a number of issues that SCT has never resolved and which depend on the individual circumstances of a given case: • Can we infer an implicit threat from context alone when words themselves are not threatening? • What constitutes an implicit threat? • Is publication of a person’s true, personal information a threat? • How does the presence of others who may carry out the threat affect the situation (i.e., treatment of the case as incitement)? • What relationship must the crowd/group have with the speaker to treat it as threat vs. incitement vs. political hyperbole? • Does the speaker have to receive the threat before it can be punished? • What if the threat is issued in a public statement instead of privately one-on-one? • What if the threat is only a small part of a larger non-threatening statement?
The intent required for a “true threat” • "True threats" encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals [although the] speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. • Virginia v. Black, 538 US 343 (2003) • What does the phrase “speaker means to communicate . . . intent to commit act of violence” mean? • Must the speaker subjectively intend to threaten someone? • Or must the speaker subjectively intend to communicate with someone while that person reasonably regards the communication as a threat? • Lower courts take both approaches
US v. Elonis (3d Cir) • Are the 3d Circuit’s arguments re why it adopted the “objective” intent standard persuasive? • Is such a standard too chilling? • Is the subjective intent standard unworkable? • Was Elonis’s speech a true threat? • Under either intent standard? • How important was it that the speech appeared as rap lyrics? • Did the 3d Circuit give too little credence to that background? • What factors lend to or detract from a finding that this speech was a threat?