Also known as: true threat · true-threat · true threat doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A category of unprotected speech consisting of statements in which the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group. The speaker need not intend to carry out the threatened act. The prohibition protects people from the fear of violence and the resulting disruption.
Tobias Thomas and fellow students gathered at midnight on the main lawn beside campus housing and burned a large wooden cross. They posted on social media tagging faculty member Tanya Tang by name and listing her home address while criticizing a new university policy. Tang saw the flames and posts from her window and feared for her family's safety. The university suspended Thomas pending investigation into whether the conduct amounted to a true threat.
Theodore Tucker sent dozens of Facebook messages to musician Tara Tran expressing romantic interest while also implying he was watching her movements. Tran grew fearful that Tucker was following her and contacted police. Tucker was charged under a stalking statute. At trial he argued the messages lacked the required mental state to qualify as true threats.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Tracy Torres led five protesters on a public sidewalk outside a hospital during a nurse's memorial service. They held signs accusing the deceased nurse of helping murder children and naming her personally. The nurse's brother saw the signs through the chapel window and suffered severe emotional distress. He sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming the signs crossed into unprotected true threats.
No. The definition requires only that the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence. The prohibition protects against the fear of violence and its disruptive effects even when the speaker has no plan to act.
Supporting sources
Yes. Cross burning is not automatically a true threat. A state may not treat every instance as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. The defendant must be allowed to show an expressive, non-threatening purpose such as political protest.
Supporting sources
True threats focus on creating fear of future violence and do not require imminent breach of the peace. Fighting words are personally abusive epithets likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation. The two categories overlap but rest on distinct harms.
Supporting sources
The government must show the speaker acted with at least recklessness as to whether the statement would be understood as a serious threat. Mere negligence is constitutionally insufficient.
Supporting sources
…v. United States , 394 U. S. 705. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat; rather, the prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and from the disruption that fear engenders, as well as from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. The prima facie evidence…