"Among the category of unprotected speech are “true threats,” statements in which a speaker expresses a “serious” intent “to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”
[3] Even though statutes that punish unprotected speech have “never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem”
[4] and Congress has made it a crime to use interstate communications facilities to make “threats,” the law governing this subject has been unclear."
"The federal circuit courts of appeals disagree over the correct
mens rea requirement necessary to prove a violation of the federal threat statute. A majority of those courts require the government to prove only that the defendant knowingly made a statement that “was not the result of mistake, duress, or coercion” and that a “reasonable person” would regard as threatening.
[6] Other courts have required a different, stricter standard—one that requires the government to prove not only that the defendant knowingly made a statement reasonably perceived as threatening, but also that he subjectively intended for his communication to be threatening."
https://www.heritage.org/the-constit...ent-protection
Lummy