Jones v. State
Jones v. State, 64 SW3d 728 (Ark 2002), analyzed the various tests used by courts to assess whether a threat is true, and thus unprotected by the constitution.
The First Circuit says the standard is "whether the defendant should have reasonably foreseen that the statement he uttered would be taken as a threat by those to whom it was made." Id. at 734 .
The Second Circuit asks if the language "on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution." Id. at 734-35.
The Sixth Circuit asks if a reasonable person would perceive "a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm" and "the purpose of furthering some goal through the use of intimidation." Id. 347 Ark. at 419.
The Ninth Circuit asks, "whether a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault." Id. .