In 2305 we cover civil liberties, the First Amendment, Free Speech, as well as the court cases that have justified limits on speech. As we will see, while speech is protected, actions are not. The problem is that some speech promotes, or promises, harmful action. Is that types of speech protected? And if it isn't, how is it addressed?
Here's a recent example.
- Click here for the article.
On Aug. 11, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas unsealed a criminal complaint charging Abigail Jo Shry with one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of any communication containing a threat to injure the person of another). The complaint alleges that Shry left a voicemail for Judge Chutkan in which she made threats against the judge’s life.
At 7:51 p.m. on Aug. 5, Shry allegedly called Chuktan’s chambers and left a voicemail using a phone number that was traced back to her in Alvin, Texas. In the message, Shry used racial slurs against Chutkan and threatened to kill “anyone who went after former President Trump, including a direct threat to kill Congresswomen Sheila Jackson Lee, all democrats in Washington D.C., and all people in the LBGTQ community,” according to the criminal complaint. In an affidavit supporting the complaint, Shry later denied any plans to travel to Washington, D.C. or Houston to act on her threats but added that, if Sheila Jackson Lee came to Alvin, “then we need to worry.”
What is a True Threat?
- Wikipedia:
A true threat is a threatening communication that can be prosecuted under the law. It is distinct from a threat that is made in jest. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that true threats are not protected under the U.S. Constitution based on three justifications: preventing fear, preventing the disruption that follows from that fear, and diminishing the likelihood that the threatened violence will occur. There is some concern that even satirical speech could be regarded as a "true threat" due to concern over terrorism. The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States.
- Constitution Annotated:
The Supreme Court has cited three reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment—protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.
