on what we think the true threats exception to the st now there's reasons why this statute the threat is provision of the subsections agency violate the st amendment and see the tru threats from vision of st the true threats exception personality is limited to threats at the very least of illegal acts and probably crimes but when the legislature wadham the statute it removed the requirement that what threatened had if threat of a violent crime so now the statute sweeps in such ordinary protected discourse as a boss threatening to fire at a boy or a bag maker threaten to foreclose on a home true threat is one where the speaker means to convey a threat that if it use the word means with a significance because the statute allows for it's a felony out of st the stache are too broad as to what is threatened one of the reasons that this court relevant about the communications provision on constitutional was in part because the activists advocating a boycott could theoretically be prosecuted recently offered the example of a banker threatened or close the baker might have every lawful right to do so but of course the homeowner that read that receives of the a rush their house is going to be emotionally distressed by that communication threaten to additionally say that like the old statute the threat has to be a threat of immediate future possibly harm sexual assault straight the state says let's use the doctor it constitutional boy didn't and narrow this out there side of the definitions to describe an attorney threating to withdraw from representing a client or a dept that collector threatening to inform another of a debtor's neighbors about their debt and we know that the legislature could not have reasonably intended the term threaten alone to mean only threats of violent crime because it also bare all communications to or about somebody that know that negligently distress that is a bit including whether they will or not there were threats the fact that the legislature in the very next term over in the same legislative enact it but such a broad sherm as communicates to or about met that is that the legislature intended the narrower structure and then we go to the statutory history itself we still have a definition of threats in illinois law that limits the threats to violent crime that's the predecessor statute that's now under subsection  new statute they deleted that limitation so if you read in that the threat has to be a threat of violent crime or an unlawful act into the bad word threatens in this statute which requires not only reading in a limitation th is that a lot of ordinary discourse is threats whether we're talking about the politicians or read the threats to vote against the bill lawfully the seals example of the threatens to call his his attorney or the banker threatened to foreclose or the spouse threatened to divorce these are all protected speech when to reach all these examples of protected speech for words that one would that recipient would reasonably understand as a threat even if it wasn't intended to be a threat this is a consequence of that language in the statute using in negligence mental state say those are but we go so far as to as to the st when we go so far as to allow prosecution based on others reasonable interpretations of what of what is said rather than the speaker's intent that creates the risk that communications intend intended sarcasm or intended as hyperbole he can become the basis from presidents and speakers begin to censor themselves less their words become misinterpreted now the question of what red state the the true threats particular individual or group of individuals those words means to communicate are strongly signify that the that they expect the speaker to have elsewhere because the decision talks  case does an excellent detail run down on by line of all the major us supreme court decisions on this topic and ends up losing that intention is required and therefore it struck portion of who want to answer your position is a  knowingly conveys a threat in other words knowing that the recipient would understand it as a threat but when we talk about how a reasonable person would interpret the words that alone is not enough when the public figures that issue are liars actual knowledge of the actual malice standard that we have the standards in all these verses st amended exceptions so that speakers don't inadvertently strange falling into an exception essentially negligent standard it says we can prosecute shiel if your words though you didn't mean it this way could could have been interpreted could have reasonably been interpreted as a threat that you ought to have known better than say ways and especially when we look at today's political context i think this is important because one way for to generate clicks and generate donations is for politicians to interpret felony as a consequence of them here which in effect of their words is simply an invitation to two county prosecutors out there so you have to pick and choose which ambiguous potentially threatening phrases might be the basis of felony prosecutions your honor that has this case does give one example of this that i think is helpful it offers an example of black lives matters protesters playing rap music at a rally that talks about where the lyrics talk about killing the police now sure i can measure circumstance that despite the protesters intent there is there rally that somebody out there could and prosecutors closing argument great argue reclaim that there that a reasonable person would understand that is a threat the danger is that in circumstances like that a amendment exception comes a pretext to silence as i'd like to turn to the additional constitutional issue of the briefs which is archy process now instead of just looking at subsection c as term threatens here we're looking at subsection a as a whole and when you look at prosecution by the statute and the problem is because there is so much actions by bias or says three toward one another that they cause process clause and some says this looks like the gag loitering or that chicago had a few years ago that this court struck down where well we can the role of anybody on the street who's standing there with another gang member just about anyone when they don't have they want to charge when they don't have any other basis to use for that reason it violates due process i see my time's short this court has no further questions i've asked the reverse the appellate court's judgment figure out exactly what the statute said on because it can't determine whether the statue sweeps over the broad without knowing what speech is in that noise and resolving that question suffering that it drags engender and whether or not the speaker it ended for the speech to be perceived as the right of a reasonable person would understand it to be a threat then the consequences on that  standard didn't view virginity blanket creating a new standard based on the subject of defense of the speaker or both because that wouldn't really advance the purpose of the exception it doesn't actually have anything meaningful to protection of fre brief the u s supreme court did not say that well there's a six clause therefore we can read the section something different the legislature actually have acted to something more that we think is more constitution of the states means and one reason that stevens talks about when courts should strike down statutes on their face is to create an incentive for legislatures to draft clear constitutional statutes in the st place now it's these all the kind of behaviors that one might characterize a stalking and one of broad sweep when we try to do that we end of sweeping in a host of our discourse at the end of sweeping in a host of illinois ordinary conduct a idea that when to use the term threatens the legislature it secretly meant to use the term in this technical cons sense and not in the ordinary sense of the world when the legislature wants to specify what is