definition of true threats and that definition itself emphasizes particulary specificity the court ruled that true threats are basements where the speaker communicate a quote serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or individuals nd i think black also provided needed context now right of course involved the virginia statute which prohibited the burning crosses done with the intent to intimidate and the statute also had a prima facia evidence provision which helped that if one b process one was presumed to have done so with the intent to intimidate so the black course was faced with two real questions one can it cross burning be a true threat and think you're speaking about a statement on his facebook page of course was not the charge statement but i don't believe the government argued either here argued below that he was markets that the charge statement was targeting anyone in particular or that when he talks about the dr ronn in the former statement it certainly doesn't ring any specificity to to the it's not hard to determine who is being threatened and research hasn't revealed and i don't believe the government has has found any other case or any other circuit in which a particular group or individuals allegation that he's saying he was going to be targeting any of these witnesses there's no argument that these people on the may post were the ones who were being targeted in the charge but yes again i would agree it's threat well your honor i think those who needs to be pressed and i think every single case has had at the very least and those who should be particular now as to though what i would agree somewhat unclear in this case although to be fair on that case i'm not sure how much we can rely because the defendant had waived arguments with respect to the same way if it does not mean that any of the two billion users facebook are likely to see it and i think here it's helpful to argue a little bit by way of metaphor if i were to enter into the woods process here that goes with respect to convey some of the quote unquote truth you must attempt to convey the threat to somebody now there was never an allegation here that there was any threat  in his car and that is sufficient under threat doctrine for it to have gone to the jury and the jury based on this evidence reasonably found it was a truth wrapped the defendant also intended or at least knew that it was a threat so the that post or that threat would be viewed by reasonable observer as frightening so he certainly is correct not to intend to threaten there needs to be an intended audience however under the nd provision of this that he must know it would be go pro camera onto this hack being the killings and then this is his language uploading the video to facebook for the whole world to see it makes very clear that he intends for people the whole world to be searching for it right one question i don't think whatever the bright line is i would disagree that we are in this case very close to it the the i think we have we're not asking the court to say that the individual being threatened must always be named and addressed and and statement ultimately clear as to exactly this one person living there should be a particular person or group of people and all we are asking is for the court to apply the definition of true threats that the supreme court gave in black and with respect to that statement about black being from a different statute i think that is a distinction without  would agree it lends insight into the source of the anger i think that's fair but i don't think it is quite right is whether that car wreck lends insight into the target of the threat but certainly that wasn't something i don't think that the government