Opinion ID: 221261
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Objective Understanding

Text: We begin with the objective test. One question under § 879(a)(3) is whether a reasonable person who heard the statement would have interpreted it as a threat. Gordon, 974 F.2d at 1117. This objective test requires the fact-finder to look[] at the entire factual context of [the] statements including: the surrounding events, the listeners' reaction, and whether the words are conditional. Id. It is necessary, then, to determine whether Bagdasarian's statements, considered in their full context, would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm on or to take the life of [Obama]. Id. (quoting Roy, 416 F.2d at 877-78). The evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that a reasonable person who read the postings within or without the relevant context would have understood either to mean that Bagdasarian threatened to injure or kill the Presidential candidate. [17] Neither statement constitutes a threat in the ordinary meaning of the word: an expression of an intention to inflict ... injury ... on another. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2382 (1976). The Obama fk the niggar statement is a prediction that Obama will have a 50 cal in the head soon. It conveys no explicit or implicit threat on the part of Bagdasarian that he himself will kill or injure Obama. Nor does the second statement impart a threat. [S]hoot the nig is instead an imperative intended to encourage others to take violent action, if not simply an expression of rage or frustration. The threat statute, however, does not criminalize predictions or exhortations to others to injure or kill the President. [18] It is difficult to see how a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found that either statement, on its face or taken in context, expresses a threat against Obama by Bagdasarian. [19] There is no disputing that neither of Bagdasarian's statements was conditional and that both were alarming and dangerous. The first statement, which referred to Obama as a niggar who will have a 50 cal in the head soon, coupled a racial slur with an assassination forecast during a highly controversial campaign that would ultimately make Obama the country's first black president. No less troubling is the defendant's second statement imploring others to shoot the nig, lest the country [be] fkd for another 4 years+ because never in history has a black person done ANYTHING right. There are many unstable individuals in this nation to whom assault weapons and other firearms are readily available, some of whom might believe that they were doing the nation a service were they to follow Bagdasarian's commandment. There is nevertheless insufficient evidence that either statement constituted a threat or would be construed by a reasonable person as a genuine threat by Bagdasarian against Obama. When our law punishes words, we must examine the surrounding circumstances to discern the significance of those words' utterance, but must not distort or embellish their plain meaning so that the law may reach them. Here, the meaning of the words is absolutely plain. They do not constitute a threat and do not fall within the offense punished by the statute. In Watts, the Supreme Court reversed a conviction under a presidential threat statute. 394 U.S. at 705-06, 89 S.Ct. 1399. The defendant there had said, [a]nd now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J. Id. at 706, 89 S.Ct. 1399. The Court held that we must interpret the language Congress chose `against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wideopen, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials'; adding that [t]he language of the political arena ... is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact. Id. at 708, 89 S.Ct. 1399 (citations omitted). The Government argues that among the relevant elements of the factual context is that the defendant's messages were anonymous, posted only under the screen name californiaradial. We grant that in some circumstances a speaker's anonymity could influence a listener's perception of danger. But the Government offers no support for its contention that the imperative shoot the nig or the prediction that Obama will have a 50 cal in the head soon would be more rather than less likely to be regarded as a threat under circumstances in which the speaker's identity is unknown. [20] Whatever the effect, in other circumstances, of anonymity on a reasonable interpretation of Bagdasarian's statements, the financial message board to which he posted them is a non-violent discussion forum that would tend to blunt any perception that statements made there were serious expressions of intended violence. When, in this case, we look to [c]ontextual information ... that [could] have a bearing on whether [Bagdasarian's] statements might reasonably be interpreted as a threat, United States v. Parr, 545 F.3d 491, 502 (7th Cir.2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 129 S.Ct. 1984, 173 L.Ed.2d 1083 (2009), the only possible evidence is that three or four discussion board members wrote that they planned to alert authorities to the shoot the nig posting, although only one reader, Air Force Officer Base, actually did. The dissent identifies the responsive postings as the [m]ost telling evidence that a reasonable person would have perceived Bagdasarian's messages as a threat. In doing so, it mischaracterizes these postings as indicat[ing] that [their authors] perceived `shoot the nig' as a threat to candidate Obama. Dissent at 1129. In fact, none of the responses said anything about a threat. Their authors may well have thought that Bagdasarian's messages were impermissible or offensive for some other reason or that they encouraged racism or violence. We fail to see why the fact that several people had negative reactions to the messages should be taken to mean that they or others interpreted them as a threat. It is certainly more significant that among the numerous persons who read Bagdasarian's messages, the record reveals only one who was sufficiently disturbed to actually notify the authorities. [21] The Government contends that two additional facts show that Bagdasarian's statements might reasonably be interpreted as a threat. The first is that when Bagdasarian made the statement that Obama will have a 50 cal in the head soon, Bagdasarian actually had .50 caliber weapons and ammunition in his home. The second is that on Election Day, two weeks after posting the messages, he sent an email that read, Pistol ... plink plink plink Now when you use a 50 cal on a nigga car you get this, and linked to a video of debris and two junked cars being blown up. Nobody who read the message board postings, however, knew that he had a .50 caliber gun or that he would send the later emails. Neither of these facts could therefore, under an objective test, have a bearing on whether [Bagdasarian's] statements might reasonably be interpreted as a threat by a reasonable person in the position of those who saw his postings on the AIG discussion board. Parr, 545 F.3d at 502.