> Free speech doesn't include yelling fire in a crowded theater, That is false as a matter of well established US law. That was used as an evocative argument

> Free speech doesn't include yelling fire in a crowded theater, That is false as a matter of well established US law. That was used as an evocative argument in a long ago debate about what US law should be, and that side lost. > nor does it include making suggestions of physical violence against a judge. That is also false as a matter of well established US law. > describing a specific act of physical violence [...] against a specific person who also happens to be a public official [...] could cause that person, if they are reasonable, to feel that their life was in danger. That's the standard. That is not the standard. > Edit: or cause other reasonable people to believe that the individual's life was in danger That is also not the standard. This is not a matter of opinion, and this is not a grey area. That's not how the "reasonable person" test actually works, and that's not how the "true threats" exception to the first amendment is actually defined. I understand that it might seem reasonable to you that someone "could" fear for their life as a result of the comments, or even that any reasonable person could do so, or even that they would. You might even be right. But as a matter of law, that doesn't matter.