This week, a First Amendment case concluded with a jury acquitting a man named Peter Stinson, who had made repeated calls for the assassination of former President Donald Trump and expressed violent fantasies regarding his death.
Stinson, a former Coast Guard officer, faced accusations of inciting violence, but the jury ultimately found him not guilty. The trial prompted discussions about the boundaries between protected speech and criminal conduct.
Court records indicated that Stinson urged someone to “shoot” Trump and stated that violence seemed to be the only viable solution. He reportedly referenced stabbing in a violent manner and suggested he would be “willing to participate” in an assassination plot.
In another post made during the COVID-19 pandemic, Stinson claimed both he and Trump wanted each other dead.
A university professor testified that it wasn’t uncommon for people to express such sentiments about Trump online, although she didn’t endorse sharing those thoughts on social media. She noted that many accounts exist that seem dedicated to tracking whether Trump is still alive.
An advisor for a civil rights organization pointed out that a key issue in Stinson’s case was the lack of clarity regarding to whom he was soliciting a crime. He explained that concrete solicitation typically implies direct engagement with someone to commit a crime, which was absent in this scenario.
Stinson’s defense maintained that his statements fell under political free speech protected by the First Amendment, arguing they lacked the necessary immediacy and specificity to be deemed threats.
Recent Context of Political Violence
The jury’s quick acquittal followed a notable trial amidst rising political violence, particularly highlighted by the assassination of activist Charlie Kirk and various threats against both Republican and Democratic politicians.
For example, a man was convicted of attempting to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh after taking actual steps to carry out the threat, including armed visits to Kavanaugh’s residence.
In another case, an individual faced charges after threatening former President Barack Obama while live-streaming from his neighborhood, armed with illegal weapons. There’s also a case involving threats sent to federal judges that raised First Amendment debates, yet the judge allowed the claims to proceed to jury consideration.
Free Speech vs. Threats
The Supreme Court established some benchmarks in a 1969 ruling concerning what constitutes a threat versus protected political speech. They highlighted the need to differentiate between exaggerated political claims and genuine threats.
Initially charged with two counts of threats against the president, Stinson was eventually only charged with solicitation after the Justice Department revised its approach, failing to convince the jury that Stinson’s remarks were more than mere verbal assaults.
Reactions to Political Rhetoric
Experts assert that, generally, incitement to violence through speech remains protected without a direct link to an actual attack, emphasizing the complexity in evaluating such statements.
