holding, with respect to a statute criminalizing threats against the President of the United States, that “a statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,” so that “a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech”
How later courts described this case
- holding, with respect to a statute criminalizing threats against the President of the United States, that “a statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,” so that “a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech”
- finding that the statute in question in that case must be interpreted “against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debates on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometime unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials”
- holding utterance that “[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle [upon being drafted into the U.S. military] the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” was merely “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” and was thus protected by the First Amendment
- holding that a man who, in protesting the draft, stated, “ ‘If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.,’ ” did not make a true *812 threat (quoting N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964))
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Krijger, 130 Conn. App. 470 (2011)
” Respectfully, we conclude that Watts is distinguishable from the present case, and we do not agree that, considering their context, the statements in Watts were “significantly more threatening” than those in the present case.
Distinguished by United States v. Raul Maisonet, 484 F.2d 1356 (1973)
Moreover, his reliance on Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969), is misplaced because the eases are factually distinguishable.
The opinion
*709 Mr. Justice Douglas,
concurring.
The charge in this case is of an ancient vintage.
The federal statute under which petitioner was convicted traces its ancestry to the Statute of Treasons ( 25 Edw. 3 ) which made it a crime to “compass or imagine the Death of . . . the King.” Note, Threats to Take the Life of the President, 32 Harv. L. Rev. 724 , 725 (1919). It is said that one Walter Walker, a 15th century keeper of an inn known as the “Crown,” was convicted under the Statute of Treasons for telling his son: “Tom, if thou behavest thyself well, I will make thee heir to the Crown.” He was found guilty of compassing and imagining the death of the King, hanged, drawn, and quartered. 1 J. Campbell, Lives of the Chief Justices of England 151 (1873).
In the time of Edward IV, one Thomas Burdet who predicted that the king would “soon die, with a view to alienate the affections” of the people was indicted for “compassing and imagining of the death of the King,” 79 Eng. Rep. 706 (1477) — the crime of constructive treason 1 with which the old reports are filled.
*710 In the time of Charles II, one Edward Brownlow was indicted “for speaking these words, that he wished all the gentry in the land would kill one another, so that the comminalty might live the better.” 3 Middlesex County Rec. 326 (1888). In the same year (1662) one Robert Thornell was indicted for saying “that if the Kinge did side with the Bishops, the divell take Kinge and the Bishops too.” Id., at 327.
While our Alien and Sedition Laws were in force, John Adams, President of the United States, en route from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Quincy, Massachusetts, stopped in Newark, New Jersey, where he was greeted by a crowd and by a committee that saluted him by firing a cannon.
A bystander said, “There goes the President and they are firing at his ass.” Luther Baldwin was indicted for replying that he did not care “if they fired through his ass.” He was convicted in the federal court for speaking “sedicious words tending to defame the President and Government of the United States” and fined, assessed court costs and expenses, and committed to jail until the fine and fees were paid. See J. Smith, Freedom’s Fetters 270-274 (1956).
The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done with them forever. 2
*711 Yet the present statute has hardly fared better. “Like the Statute of Treasons, section 871 was passed in a 'relatively calm peacetime spring/ but has been construed under circumstances when intolerance for free speech was much greater than it normally might be.” Note, Threatening the President: Protected Dissenter or Political Assassin, 57 Geo. L. J. 553, 570 (1969). Convictions under 18 U. S. C. § 871 have been sustained for displaying posters urging passersby to “hang [President] Roosevelt.” United States v. Apel, 44 F. Supp. 592, 593 (D. C. N. D. Ill. 1942); for declaring that “President Wilson ought to be killed. It is a wonder some one has not done it already. If I had an opportunity, I would do it myself.” United States v. Stickrath, 242 F. 151, 152 (D. C. S. D. Ohio 1917); for declaring that “Wilson is a wooden-headed son of a bitch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power I would put him there,” Clark v. United States, 250 F. 449 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1918). In sustaining an indictment under the statute against a man who indicated that he would enjoy shooting President Wilson if he had the chance, the trial court explained the thrust of § 871:
“The purpose of the statute was undoubtedly, not only the protection of the President, but also the prohibition of just such statements as those alleged in this indictment. The expression of such direful intentions and desires, not only indicates a spirit of disloyalty to the nation bordering upon treason, but is, in a very real sense, a menace to the peace and safety of the country. ... It arouses resentment *712 and concern on the part of patriotic citizens.” United States v. Jasick, 252 F. 931, 933 (D. C. E. D. Mich. 1918).
Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution.
The prosecution in those cases laid bare to the juries that the treasonous thoughts were the heart of the matter; “the original of his Treasons proceeded from the imagination of his heart; which imagination was in itself High-Treason, albeit the same proceeded not to any overt fact: and the heart being possessed with the abundance of his traitorous imagination, and not being able so to contain itself, burst forth in vile and traitorous Speeches, and from thence to horrible and heinous actions.” Trial of Sir John Perrot, 1 How. St. Tr. 1315, 1318 (1592). “[T]he high treason charged, is the compassing or imagining (in other words, the intending or designing) the death of the king; I mean his NATURAL DEATH; which being a hidden operation of the mind, an overt act is any thing which legally proves the existence of such traitorous design and intention — I say that the design against the king’s natural life, is the high treason under the first branch of the statute; and whatever is evidence, which may be legally laid before a jury to judge of the traitorous intention, is a legal overt act; because an overt act is *710 nothing but legal evidence embodied upon the record.” Trial of Thomas Hardy, 24 How. St. Tr. 199, 894 (1794). And see 84 Eng. Rep. 1057 (1708).
For a discussion of the adequacy of mere words as overt acts see 3 W. Holdsworth, History of English Law 293 (1927).
“In the Sedition Act cases, the tendency of words to produce acts against the peace and security of the community was stretched to its utmost latitude. Likewise, judges and juries, in their willingness to presume evil intent on the part of Republican writers, largely nullified the safeguards erected by the Sedition Act itself. Criticism of the President and Congress — in which every American indulges as his birthright — was severely punished; yet this practice *711 manifestly has only a remote tendency to injure and bring into contempt the government of the United States. In short, much that has become commonplace in American political life was put under the ban by the Federalist lawmakers and judges of 1798.” J. Miller, Crisis in Freedom 233 (1951).