ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵ

What the Supreme Court has called true threats are not protected by the First Amendment. The question in this case is whether the constitutional definition of a true threat includes both a subjective element (the speaker intended his words to be taken as a threat) as well as an objective element (a reasonable listener would have understood the words as a threat). In its amicus brief, the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵargues that proof of subjective intent is required to ensure that protected speech is not chilled by the fear of criminal prosecution.