From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Apr 29, 2026 at 10:53:44 AM PDT, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>: >>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:29:41 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

But it can't be prosecuted. There's a legal difference between saying
you want something and saying you intend to do it.

"I want to kill..." or "I hope someone kills..." vs "I'm going to kill..."

Under Elonis vs. United States, the threat must be a "true threat"
in order to be prosecutable. The defendant must both truly intend the >>>threat and have the actual ability to carry out the threat.

So your saying we can't prosecute someone for posting a picture of a
bunch of sea shells that say 86 someone?

Well, I wasn't saying that specifically, but now that you bring it up, yes, >such a person could not be successfully prosecuted consistent with the 1st >Amendment.

True threats, James Comey, and the Supreme Court: an explainer
By Alex Rivenbark
SCOTUSblog
May 12, 2026 https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/true-threats-james-comey-and-the-supreme-court-an-explainer-/

BTR1701 explained the legal concept of "true threat" from the Supreme
Court opinion in Elonis v. United States (2015) by John Roberts on
behalf of the majority. The speech in question was violent rap
lyricsG$aposted to Facebook about harming his family, co-workers, and an
FBI agent. The defense was fantasy as artistic expression, and argued
that in the charge, the government didn't allege he intended to threaten anyone.

Please note that proving intending to threaten does not rely upon the government proving intent to attempt to commit the threatened act.

Roberts made an interesting point, I guess from Criminal Law 101, that
even if the criminal statute in question fails to address mens rea, that
mens rea is always considered. Roberts did not use the "reasonable man"
test to determine if there was a true threat, which O;Connor did in
Virginia v. Black (2003), upholding the constitutionality of a state law outlawing cross burning. Instead, Roberts wanted to consider whether the accused issued the statement for the purpose of making a threat or
knowing that it would be viewed as a threat.

In a 2023 ruling written by Kagan in Counterman v. Colorado, she said
that a mental state of recklessness was sufficient. The government must
prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the
threatening nature of his statement.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2