Edward F. Taupier v. Connecticut

Connecticut criminalizes true threats to commit a crime of violence. Like many federal and state jurisdictions, it does not distinguish between speech where the speaker actually intends to convey a true threat and speech where the speaker merely engages in reckless hyperbole and bluster to express his passionate opinions. Connecticut thus prosecutes speakers such as the Petitioner for messages even in cases where they had no intent to convey threats to anyone and were merely using hyperbole that its prosecutors consider to be reckless. Connecticut asserts that its criminalization of threatening speech where the speaker does not possess or exhibit an intent to threaten persons but merely has spoken recklessly is justified because threats do not constitute ideas, opinions, or part of a legitimate dialogue and cause fear in the minds of others. Thus, Connecticut maintains that the First Amendment only requires that a speaker possess a general intent akin to a recklessness standard. The question presented is: Whether the First Amendment prohibits a State from criminalizing threats to commit violence communicated in reckless disregard of the risk of placing another in fear.