False Treats: Legal Boundaries And Consumer Rights

False threats are considered a criminal act in many jurisdictions. The definition of a criminal threat involves verbal or non-verbal acts intended to create fear or force someone to act against their will. While the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, certain types of speech are not protected, including true threats. True threats are statements that intimidate or frighten a person into believing they will be harmed by the speaker or someone acting on their behalf. These types of threats can be prosecuted under state and federal criminal laws, with penalties ranging from misdemeanours to felonies. The context, conditional nature, and listener reaction are all factors considered in true-threat analysis. The credibility of the threat is also a key factor, as a defendant can challenge the believability of the alleged threat. While the line between a joke and a true threat can be blurry, the Supreme Court has ruled that political hyperbole and statements made in jest are generally protected under the First Amendment.

Can False Threats be Against the Law?

Criminal threats and intimidation

Criminal threats refer to specific threats of violence or the threat to commit a crime against a person that would result in their death or great bodily harm. To prove a criminal threat, the prosecution must show that the defendant issued a warning to someone that they would do something to physically harm or kill them, and that the defendant made that threat with the intent that the statement be taken as true. Under the Watts factors, courts also consider the context of the threat, its conditional nature, and the reaction of the listeners.

Intimidation, on the other hand, is a course of conduct that creates fear in a person. To prove intimidation, the prosecution must show that the defendant engaged in conduct or directed speech toward a specific person, that the defendant intended their speech or conduct to create fear, and that the person feared as a result. Intimidation can be committed through various forms of communication, including phone calls, emails, voicemails, text messages, or in-person stalking, and can be persistent and repeated actions meant to intimidate someone over an extended period, which is known as harassment.

If accused of making criminal threats or intimidation, it is important to consult an experienced criminal defense lawyer, as legal standards and elements of proof can vary from state to state, and the specific circumstances of the case will determine the applicable laws and potential defenses.

Free speech limitations

While the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, this right is not without limitations. The U.S. Supreme Court has often struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech, and there are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. These include:

• True threats: A true threat is a statement that frightens or intimidates one or more specified persons into believing that they will be seriously harmed by the speaker or someone acting on their behalf. True threats can be prosecuted under state and federal criminal laws.
• Incitement: The government may forbid incitement, which is speech directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.
• Defamation: Speech that damages someone's reputation by making false statements about them.
• Fraud: Speech that involves deception or false representation to gain an unfair advantage.
• Obscenity: Speech or material that is offensive and violates community standards of decency.
• Child pornography: Speech or material that exploits or endangers children in a sexual manner.
• Fighting words: Speech that is intended to incite violence or cause an immediate breach of the peace.
• Harassment: Speech or behaviour that is repetitive, unwanted, and distressing to the recipient.
• Intimidation: Non-verbal or verbal acts intended to create fear or force someone to act against their will.

In addition to these categories, the government may also restrict the time, place, or manner of speech under certain conditions. For example, the government may restrict the use of loudspeakers in residential areas at night, limit demonstrations that block traffic, or ban picketing of people's homes. These restrictions must be unrelated to the content of the speech and must leave people with alternative means of expressing their views.

It is important to note that the interpretation and application of these limitations can be complex and subject to change over time. The Supreme Court has ruled on specific cases, such as Virginia v. Black (2003), where the court ruled that Virginia's law banning cross-burning with the intent to intimidate did not violate the First Amendment. Additionally, the Court has clarified that political hyperbole and statements made in jest are generally protected under the First Amendment.

True threats

The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case of Watts v. United States. In this case, an eighteen-year-old male was initially convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for threatening to harm or kill the President of the United States. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating that the defendant had not made a true threat but had instead indulged in political hyperbole. The Court noted that the statement must be viewed in its context and distinguished from protected speech.

In Virginia v. Black (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's law banning cross burning with the intent to intimidate did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that states could criminalize cross burning as long as the burden was on prosecutors to prove that the act was intended as a threat and not as symbolic expression. The Court defined 'true threats' as statements where the speaker intends to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group.

In Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the Supreme Court ruled that speech is not protected if the speaker "consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening." This case established the level of intent that is sufficient to constitute a true threat under the First Amendment.

Defenses against false accusations

False threats or accusations can be distressing, and it is important to know how to defend yourself against them. Here are some strategies to protect yourself and fight back legally:

• Hire an attorney: The first and most important step is to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney. They will assess your case, provide legal guidance, and build a strategy tailored to your circumstances. An attorney can also help you understand the laws about the crime you have been accused of and explain the laws regarding false accusations. They can further conduct a pre-file investigation, which may prevent charges from being filed in the first place.
• Gather evidence: Evidence is a powerful tool in defending against false accusations. Work with your attorney to gather evidence that can cast reasonable doubt on the accusations. This includes alibis, witness testimonies, and any other information that can weaken the prosecutor's claims.
• Challenge credibility: Understand the accuser's potential motives, as false allegations often stem from personal motives such as revenge, blackmail, or harm. This understanding can help your attorney develop a strategy to challenge the accuser's credibility.
• Do not speak without legal counsel: It is crucial that you do not speak to police officers, prosecutors, or investigators without your attorney present. Even innocent statements can be misconstrued and used against you in court.
• Understand the seriousness: Realize the seriousness of the accusations and the potential penalties you could face. While you know you are innocent, there is no guarantee that others will see it that way. By taking the charges seriously, you can make informed decisions and take appropriate actions to increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome.
• Consider a plea bargain: In some cases, it may be advisable to enter into a plea agreement with the prosecutor, pleading guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence and a permanent criminal record. Your attorney can advise you on this based on their investigation and review of the evidence.

Penalties for false threats

False threats are indeed against the law and can carry severe penalties. In the United States, false threats are considered a criminal act, and those who make them can be charged with various offences, including criminal threats, intimidation, harassment, stalking, and assault. The specific charges and penalties depend on the nature and context of the threat, the applicable state and federal laws, and the defendant's intent.

Criminal Threats and Intimidation

Criminal threats and intimidation are related crimes that involve verbal or non-verbal acts intended to create fear or force someone to act against their will. The key difference is that criminal threats require specific threats of violence or the threat to commit a crime that would result in serious harm or death to the victim. Intimidation, on the other hand, encompasses any conduct that creates fear in a person.

Federal Laws and Penalties

At the federal level, making false threats or conveying false information is a crime under several statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. § 35: This statute criminalizes imparting or conveying false information related to criminal cases involving aircraft or motor vehicles. It often deals with hoaxes, such as bomb threats. Conviction under this statute can result in a prison sentence of up to five years and/or a fine. If serious bodily injury results from the false information, the maximum sentence increases to 20 years, and if death results, a life sentence is possible.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1038: This statute prohibits any conduct with the intent to convey false or misleading information about past, present, or future activities. This includes terroristic threats.
• 18 U.S.C. § 875(b), (c), or (d): The Interstate Communications Statute criminalizes the use of interstate communications, such as social media or text messages, to transmit threatening communications.
• Aircraft Sabotage Act: This Act created a felony offence for conveying threats to commit acts of violence related to aircraft, such as bomb hoaxes.

State Laws and Penalties

In addition to federal laws, individual states have their own statutes and penalties for false threats. For example:

• Florida: In 2016, Florida enacted a law that raised false reporting and terroristic threats to felony offences, carrying harsher penalties, including potential prison time and fines.
• Other States: Various other states, including Virginia, have laws prohibiting specific types of threats, such as threats made with the intent to intimidate through cross burning.

Defences and Considerations

When facing charges of making false threats, several defences may be available, including challenging the credibility of the threat, arguing that the alleged victim manufactured the threat for ulterior motives, or asserting that the statement was made in jest or as political hyperbole, which is protected under the First Amendment. An experienced criminal defence lawyer can guide individuals through the specific defences available in their jurisdiction.

Frequently asked questions