>[the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts. In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech."[3] The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wideopen" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat." [3] In so holding, the Court established that there is a "true threat" exception to protected speech, but also that the statement must be viewed in its context and distinguished from protected hyperbole.](https://archive.md/zCQfy) ____ By specific AND actionable I mean something in which you could reasonably carry out. You can legally post that you're going to kill me all you'd like. Or any OP. Or all faggots, niggers, etc. etc. etc. None of those are reasonably actionable. However if there comes a point in time where let's say someone is doxxed. Whoever it may be. You can not then in reply to that post say something to the following; >Now that I know where that person lives. I'm going to kill that fucker. There is now enough information for that threat to be carried out. That makes it illegal. There are distinctions to this though. People in the news for example. Just like libel and slander, being in the news or being publicly known etc. opens up a whole new level of criteria. As my original SCOTUS quote alludes to. You can get away with quite the actual threat even while knowing where the person lives. JUST DON'T BE A FUCKING IDIOT. Threaten politicians, yeah great, you're covered. That one nigger that ends up doing something nigger-tier and you end up knowing where it lives? Keep your fucking mouth shut.