Boyle v. Landry (1971) reversed injunctions against enforcement statutes
and ordinances prohibiting intimidation, despite a First Amendment plea by
African-Americans.
In Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U. S. ____ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the conviction of a man found guilty of stalking a female musician, ruling that the First Amendment’s protection of free speech requires that prosecutors show that he was aware of the threatening nature of his communications. The ruling provided additional guidance on
Elonis v. United States (2015) reversed a conviction of a man convicted of
making threats via Facebook posts. True threats are not protected by the
First Amendment.
“True threats” are not protected by the First Amendment. Hunter v. Bryant
(1991) upheld the warrantless arrest of a man who made a supposed threat
against the President.
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Kansas State Supreme
Court ruling that invalidated a statute criminalizing threats made with
reckless disregard for the fear they causes. Justice Clarence Thomas
dissented, saying he thought the truth threat jurisprudence needed to be
clarified.
Lavine v. Blaine School District (9th Cir. 2001) said a school’s decision
to emergency expel a student who submitted a violent-themed poem did not
violate the First Amendment.
A Colorado appellate court’s ruling in an online stalking case has led to a review by the U.S. Supreme Court on what the government must show about the speaker’s state of mind for speech to be considered a “true threat” and not protected under the First Amendment. In People v. Counterman (2021), the Colorado Court
In Perez v. Florida (2017), the Supreme Court declined to look at the First
Amendment issues in the the conviction of a man who drunkenly stated he
could blow up a liquor store.
Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition
of Life Activists (2002) determined that anti-abortion speech was not
protected by the First Amendment.
Virginia v. Black (2003) upheld a statute making it illegal to burn a cross
in public to intimidate others. Cross burning was a true threat unprotected
by the First Amendment.
Watts v. United States (1969) determined that the First Amendment does not
protect true threats but that a threat made against President Johnson was
political hyperbole.