overviewfrequently asked questionscases & resources
  FAQs >
 
Can a city impose a permit fee on citizens for posting political yard signs?
 
Can a city prohibit political signs but allow commercial signs, such as 'for sale' signs?
 
Can the government impose a 10-minute time limit on speakers during a 'public comment' period?
 
Can neighborhood, homeowners’ and condo associations restrict residents in displaying signs, flags, decorations, etc., outside their dwellings?
 
At a public meeting, can officials limit a person’s speech because he or she has spoken at previous meetings?
 
Could officials limit each speaker to one topic per meeting?
 
Could officials bar speakers from criticizing the government?
 
Have courts addressed whether clapping at public meetings is protected by the First Amendment?
 
May I place fliers on car windshields in a shopping-mall parking lot?
 
Are city councils and similar public bodies required to have periods for public comment at meetings?
 
May I place leaflets on a windshield if the car is parked along a public street?
 
May I hand out leaflets to passersby on a public sidewalk?
 
What is a true threat?
 
How have the lower courts handled the question of true threats?
 
 

The lower courts have handled true-threat cases in different ways. Most courts have adopted something called the “objective test.” Basically, it “focuses on whether a reasonable person would interpret the purported threat as a serious expression of an intent to cause a present or future harm” (United States v. Dinwiddie 76 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 1996).) One problem with this test is that different circuits use different “actors” as the reasonable person. Some use the reasonable-speaker test and ask “whether a reasonable person standing in the shoes of the speaker would foresee that the recipient would perceive the statement as a threat.” Other circuits use a reasonable-recipient test where the question is, would a reasonable person in the recipient’s place view the statement as a threat. The last objective test is the reasonable-person test where it is asked, would a reasonable third party, hearing the statement, interpret it as a threat.

In addition, some circuits have also tacked on a “subjective” element to the test where courts seek to determine the intent of the speaker. Courts will try to determine whether the speaker intended his statement to be a threat, regardless of intent to carry out the threat. An additional subjective element, trying to determine whether the speaker intended to actually carry out the threat, has fallen out of use and is no longer considered in true-threat cases.

In Dinwiddie, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals developed a list of factors to determine if a statement would be interpreted as a true threat. The 8th Circuit wrote, “the reaction of the recipient of the threat and of other listeners, whether the threat was conditional, whether the threat was communicated directly to its victim, whether the maker of the threat had made similar statements to the victim in the past, and whether the victim had reason to believe that the maker of the threat had a propensity to engage in violence. This list is not exhaustive, and the presence or absence of any one of its elements need not be dispositive.”

 
 
Is it constitutional to have a separate law covering threats against the U.S. president?
 
How is the true-threats doctrine applied to student speech?
 
What constitutes 'imminent lawless action'?
 
Can military personnel attend anti-war protests?
 
Are members of the military allowed to participate in a campaign for a political candidate?
 
Can the military prevent the press from covering a war?
 
Are military personnel allowed to write letters to elected officials or to the editor of a newspaper?
 
Can military personnel collect names on a petition to send to elected officials?
 
FAQs about public employee speech
 
What is the difference between a vanity plate and a specialty license plate?
 
For First Amendment purposes are license plates private speech or government speech?
 
Can the government prohibit racially insensitive license plates?
 
What is the definition of fighting words?
 
Does this mean that all profanity constitutes fighting words?
 
Why is the subject of fighting words so important?
 
Why are bumper stickers considered a form of speech?
 
Are bumper stickers with profanity protected under the First Amendment?
 
Does it matter if a bumper sticker is displayed at a public employee's workplace, or on public school grounds?
 
What are cabaret laws?
 
Why is social dancing not protected by the First Amendment?
 
I've been told you can't mention or even joke about weapons or bombs in an airport or on a plane. Does that rule violate the First Amendment?
 
Is it unlawful to wear clothing bearing words such as 'police' or 'sheriff'?
 
Does the First Amendment protect the right to wear a T-shirt that reads “Kill A Cop”?
 
View All Answers    Clear All Answers
 
print this   Print


Last system update: Saturday, November 21, 2009 | 05:28:30
 SEARCH  MORE
Personal & public expression >
License plates
Fighting words
Bumper stickers
Social dancing
Political yard signs
Speaking at public meetings
Public employee speech
Fliers & leafleting
True threats
Military speech