The First Amendment won out this week in a court case over a man who repeatedly called for President Donald Trump’s assassination and openly fantasized about his violent demise. 

A jury acquitted the man, Peter Stinson, of one charge of soliciting a crime of violence, raising questions about when speech is protected by the Constitution and when it becomes incriminating.

A former longtime Coast Guard officer, Stinson called for someone to ‘take the shot’ in reference to Trump, according to court papers. ‘Realistically the only solution is violence,’ Stinson wrote.

Stinson said he ‘would twist the knife after sliding it into [Trump’s] fatty flesh’ and that he ‘would be willing to pitch in’ for a hitman contract.

‘He wants us dead. I can say the same thing about him,’ Stinson wrote in another post during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A witness for the defense, Professor Jen Golbeck of the University of Maryland, said people ‘rooting for Trump to die online’ is common.

‘On one hand, I would not encourage anyone to post those thoughts on social media,’ Golbeck said, according to the Washington Post. ‘On the other hand, I can’t count the number of people who I saw post similar things. … It’s a very common sentiment. There’s social media accounts dedicated to tracking whether Trump has died.’

Brennen VanderVeen, program counsel with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said that one issue with the charges in Stinson’s case was that it was not clear whom Stinson was soliciting to carry out the crime.

‘Solicitation is when it’s directly tied to the crime. So, if he contacts an actual hit man and tries to arrange some sort of hit contract, that’s solicitation,’ VanderVeen told Fox News Digital. ‘Without more … that probably does not meet the elements of actual solicitation.’

Stinson’s attorneys argued in court documents that their client’s posts were not threats but rather ‘political advocacy that the First Amendment was squarely designed to protect.’

‘They lack the ‘specificity, imminence, and likelihood of producing lawless action’ required to fall outside constitutional protection,’ the attorneys said.

Threats to conservative SCOTUS justices and Obama

The jury acquittal, which was handed down quickly after a two-day trial, came at a time when political violence has taken the spotlight, particularly in the aftermath of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a string of recent violence toward immigration enforcement officers and Republican and Democratic political figures continuously facing threats.

A person convicted of attempting to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh had taken concrete steps by searching the internet for mass shootings, discussing killing a Supreme Court justice in internet chats and showing up armed at Kavanaugh’s house in 2022.

A man who participated in the Jan. 6 riot was convicted by a judge in a separate case of firearms charges and making a hoax threat aimed at former President Barack Obama. He was sentenced this week to time served after he livestreamed himself driving around the former president’s neighborhood and saying he was ‘working on a detonator.’ He was found with a machete and illegal weapons.

In a looming constitutional test, another man is facing charges of threatening federal judges by sending hundreds of ominous messages through the Supreme Court website referencing several justices’ graphic murders. He tried to have his case tossed out over First Amendment concerns, but a judge denied the request, saying a jury would need to weigh that argument.

Presidents, senators, House members and other political figures routinely speak about facing a range of threats, whether in public forums or through direct messages.

High court greenlights ‘vituperative’ language

One legal test in these cases came in 1969, when the Supreme Court decided in favor of a protester who allegedly told a group of people while discussing getting drafted for the Vietnam War that if he is given a rifle, the first man he wants to kill is President Lyndon Johnson. His remark was political hyperbole rather than a ‘true threat,’ the high court found.

‘What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,’ the majority wrote. ‘The language of the political arena … is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.’

Stinson was initially charged with two counts of a threat against the president, but the DOJ shifted course and brought the one solicitation charge against him.

Department of Justice lawyers argued that Stinson’s incessant violent comments on X and Bluesky, coupled with self-identifying as an Antifa member, met the charging criteria, but prosecutors failed to convince a jury that the speech was more than bluster.

Kirk spurs examination of ‘hate speech’

In the case of Kirk’s murder, finger-pointing ensued. Republicans blamed inflammatory rhetoric from Kirk’s political opponents for inciting his death.

Attorney General Pam Bondi stirred the conversation by saying in an interview after Kirk’s death that the DOJ would ‘absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.’ Bondi later walked back her comment, saying speech that ‘crosses the line into threats of violence’ is punishable by law.

In cases of inciting violence, according to VanderVeen, speech remains protected because of a lacking nexus between the words and the attack.

‘Incitement is more about the imminence. … How much time would have to pass between that person’s speech and the actual unlawful act of the violence?’ VanderVeen said, noting that inciting violence typically involves addressing a mob.

‘If someone’s saying, ‘Violence is good,’ but there’s no imminent lawless action there, someone else has to say, ‘That guy’s right, that violence is good. I’m going to start doing violence,” VanderVeen said. ‘At that point, that’s on the person doing the violence.’

Republican senators issued a torrent of criticism against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg this week after it was revealed that he had signed off on subpoenas and gag orders issued as part of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation — though a cursory review of court rules suggests it is far less provocative than lawmakers have claimed.

Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., were among the Republicans who blasted Boasberg as an ‘activist’ judge, and Cruz, for his part, suggested Boasberg should be impeached. 

‘My assumption,’ Cruz fumed, is ‘that Judge Boasberg printed these things out like the placemats at Denny’s — one after the other.’

At issue were subpoenas and gag orders issued by former special counsel Jack Smith’s team as part of its probe into President Donald Trump’s actions in the wake of the 2020 election. 

The redacted documents were made public this week by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

They included subpoenas of phone records for 10 senators and one House lawmaker, and gag orders sent to Verizon and AT&T instructing them not to notify lawmakers of the subpoena. (Verizon complied, AT&T did not.) 

Both the subpoenas and gag orders were signed by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, according to the newly released documents — a detail that prompted fresh criticism and indignation from some of the Republicans in question, including Cruz, who blasted the investigation in question as ‘worse than Watergate’ and a gross violation of prosecutorial powers.

Blackburn blasted Boasberg as an ‘activist’ judge. Some lawmakers further argued for his impeachment as a result of his involvement. 

In fact, his role in the process is far from surprising. 

Local rules for the federal court system in D.C. explicitly state the chief judge ‘must hear and determine all proceedings before the grand jury.’ The subpoenas and gag orders signed by Boasberg were signed in May 2023 — roughly two months into his tenure as the chief judge for the federal court.

It’s unclear whether Sens. Cruz or Blackburn were aware of this rule, and they did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. 

But it’s also not the first time Judge Boasberg previously noted his oversight of these matters as the chief judge for D.C. — including in the special counsel probe in question. 

Boasberg explained the rule in question in June 2023, when he granted, in part, a request from media outlets to unseal a tranche of redacted documents related to the subpoena and testimony of former Vice President Mike Pence in the same probe. (He explained in a lengthy public memo that he did so because the press movant were seeking record that Pence himself had discussed publicly.) 

Still, the controversy comes as Boasberg has found himself squarely in Trump’s crosshairs, after he issued a temporary restraining order in March blocking Trump’s use of a 1798 wartime law to deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to a maximum security prison in El Salvador.

Until that point, however, Boasberg had largely avoided making headlines. 

A graduate of Yale, Oxford University and Yale Law School, Boasberg clerked for the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before joining the Justice Department as a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C.

He was tapped in 2002 by then-President George W. Bush to serve on the D.C. Superior Court, where he served until 2011, when he was nominated by President Barack Obama to the federal bench in D.C. in 2011. 

His confirmation vote soared through the Senate with a 96-0 vote of approval, including with the support of Sen. Grassley and other Republicans named in the subpoena. 

Boasberg in 2014 was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to a seven-year term on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA Court, comprised of 11 federal judges hand-selected by the chief justice. 

Former special counsel Jack Smith, for his part, has since defended his decision to subpoena the Republican lawmakers’ phone records, which Fox News Digital reported includes phone records for a four-day period surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. 

They did not include the contents of phone calls or messages, which would require a warrant, but they did include ‘[call] detail records for inbound and outbound calls, text messages, direct connect, and voicemail messages’ and phone number, subscriber, and payment information.

 His lawyers told Senate lawmakers in a letter earlier this month that the decision to do so was ‘entirely proper’ and is consistent with Justice Department policy.

Fox News’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report. 

A bipartisan pair of senators are calling on Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth to hand over copies of the orders issued to strike boats in the Caribbean allegedly carrying narco-terrorists.

Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Roger Wicker, R-Miss., released two letters they sent to Hegseth in recent weeks in response to the repeated strikes on suspected drug boats.

The first letter, which was issued on Sept. 23, explained the legal requirements for congressional oversight over the military’s executed orders, including that congressional defense committees must be provided copies of the orders within 15 days of being issued.

‘Unfortunately, the Department has not complied with this requirement,’ the letter reads.

The second letter, issued on Oct. 6, seeks a written opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) on the domestic or international legal basis for conducting the strikes and related operations.

Reports indicate that the OLC produced a legal opinion justifying the strikes, which numerous lawmakers have been demanding in recent weeks.

The senators’ letter also asked for a complete list ‘of all designated terrorist organizations and drug trafficking organizations with whom the President has determined the United States is in a non-international armed conflict and against whom lethal military force may be used.’

‘To date, these documents have not been submitted,’ Reed’s office said in a news release on Friday.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have urged the Trump administration to release information related to the strikes.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized the administration on Thursday after it excluded Democrats from briefings on the strikes, a move he called ‘indefensible and dangerous.’

On Wednesday, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also penned a letter demanding to review the legal justification behind the series of boat strikes they say appear to violate several laws.

‘Drug trafficking is a terrible crime that has had devastating impacts on American families and communities and should be prosecuted. Nonetheless, the President’s actions to hold alleged drug traffickers accountable must still conform with the law,’ the letter states.

The strikes have also garnered scrutiny from Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who raised concerns about killing people without due process and the possibility of killing innocent people.

Paul has cited Coast Guard statistics that show a significant percentage of boats boarded for suspicion of drug trafficking are innocent.

The senator has also argued that if the administration plans to engage in a war with Venezuela after it has targeted boats it claims are transporting drugs for the Venezuela-linked Tren de Aragua gang, it must seek a declaration of war from Congress.

In the House, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has made similar statements.

A report published on Friday suggested the U.S. military was planning to strike military installations in Venezuela, but President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the report was inaccurate.

This comes as Hegseth announced the U.S. military on Wednesday struck another boat carrying alleged narco-terrorists. The strikes were carried out in the Eastern Pacific region at the direction of Trump, killing four men on board.

That was the 14th strike on suspected drug boats since September. A total of 61 people have reportedly been killed while three survived, including at least two who were later repatriated to their home countries.

The Pentagon has refused to release the identities of those killed or evidence that drugs were on board.