The Michigan Court of Appeals has struck down the state’s terroristic threats law. A unanimous three-judge panel agreed the law violates the First Amendment.
The decision says the law violates the First Amendment because it focuses on how a communication might be perceived by the target of an alleged threat, instead of whether a perpetrator acted with intent or recklessness.
The defendant is Michael Kvasnicka, who was charged with making a threat of terrorism as well as using a computer to commit a crime. The case background cited in the opinion says the charges are based on a social media message Kvasnicka sent to a young girl that she was “not gonna be laughing once I come to your school and shoot it up or blow it up like [C]olumbine.”
Kvasnicka’s defense challenged the terrorism threat law on the grounds it fails to take into consideration the mindset or intent of the perpetrator.
“In summary, because there is no statutory language suggesting that the prosecutor must prove that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence, we conclude that (the terrorism threat law) is facially unconstitutional,” wrote Court of Appeals Judge Michael Kelly.
Kelly’s opinion cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision and held that without a requirement to show intent or recklessness, jokes or hyperbole that do not constitute a true threat could be swept into the law’s net.
A spokesperson for Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said her office will appeal “this unfortunate decision.”
“Our position is that the statute is not unconstitutional, it requires a true threat of terrorism. We clearly had that in the facts of our case,” said Maria Miller in an email to Michigan Public Radio. “This opinion completely misconstrues Michigan and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.”
