In Watts v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 705, the defendant, while participating in a political rally, said he would ignore a draft notice and that, if the government made him carry a rifle, the first person he wanted to get in his sights was President Lyndon Baines Johnson. (Watts, supra, 394 U.S. at p. 706 22 L. Ed. 2d at p. 666.) The defendant, while participating in a political rally, said he would ignore a draft notice and that, if the government made him carry a rifle, the first person he wanted to get his sights on was President Lyndon B. Johnson. ( Id. at p.706.) The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction because, under the facts, the statement was not a "true 'threat' " but mere political hyperbole. ( Id. at p. 708.) The United States Supreme Court held that the statute punishing threats to the President constitutional on its face, but reversed the conviction because, under the facts, the statement was not a "true 'threat'" but mere political hyperbole. (Watts, supra, 394 U.S. at p. 708.)The Supreme Court addressed free speech considerations in interpreting a statute proscribing "threats." While attending a rally at the Washington Monument, Watts reportedly declared that he would not enter the army and that "if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is President Johnson." Watts, 394 U.S. at 706. On the basis of this statement, Watts was convicted of knowingly and willfully threatening the President in violation of 18 U.S.C. 871 (a). Id. at 705-06. The Court reversed, holding "a statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." Id. at 707. It then concluded that Watt's remark, "taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners," was simply a crude statement of political opposition to the President and not a "true threat." Id. at 708. In sum, the defendant was at public rally on the Washington Monument grounds, during the time of the Vietnam War, when he stated that he had just received his draft notice to report for induction, declared he would not go, and said that "'If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.'" His listeners laughed. (Id. at pp. 706-707.) Reversing the defendant's conviction for threatening the life of the President, the United States Supreme Court said that the defendant's speech, considered in context, was "political hyperbole" rather than a "true 'threat'" and was therefore constitutionally protected. (Id. at p. 708.) The defendant was convicted of violating a 1917 statute which prohibits " 'knowingly and willfully . . . making any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States . . . .' " The defendant told others at a public rally that he had received his draft notice and was supposed to report for his physical, he was not going to go, and " 'if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.' " (Id., at pp. 705-706.) The Court reversed the conviction, holding that the defendant's statements were "political hyperbole" rather than the "true 'threat' " required by the statute: "We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was 'a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.' Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise." (Id., at p. 708.)