How might a judge's ruling on the slang term '86' redefine the legal boundaries of online expression for everyone?

Question

Accepted Answer

A ruling on “86” could become an important marker for how courts treat ambiguous online slang, especially when it is aimed at public officials. If a judge says “86 47” is protected political expression, it would reinforce that prosecutors must prove more than an arguable violent meaning; they would need context, intent, and evidence that a reasonable person would see a serious threat, not just protest language or hyperbole. That would matter well beyond this case because “true threat” law already turns on context. Supreme Court cases such as Watts v. United States protect political hyperbole, while Counterman v. Colorado requires proof that the speaker was at least aware the message could be understood as threatening. A ruling for Comey could therefore narrow the government’s room to criminalize slang, memes, coded numbers, or posts with multiple meanings unless there is clear proof of a threatening purpose. If the judge instead accepts the government’s view that “86” can support a threat charge when paired with surrounding circumstances, the boundary would shift the other way. It would signal that online users can face criminal exposure for shorthand or coded speech even when the words are not explicit. That could make people more cautious about protest slogans, satire, or reposting viral phrases whose meanings vary across audiences. In practical terms, the ruling may help define whether ambiguity protects speakers or whether ambiguity itself can become evidence in online-t…

Comey Seeks Dismissal of 10-Year '86 47' Case as Lawyers Allege Falsified Warrant Evidence

Sources

Sources

Comey Seeks Dismissal of 10-Year '86 47' Case as Lawyers Allege Falsified Warrant Evidence

Summary

Sources

Insights

Related Stories

Sources

Related Stories