24/7 call for a free consultation 212-300-5196

AS SEEN ON

EXPERIENCEDTop Rated

YOU MAY HAVE SEEN TODD SPODEK ON THE NETFLIX SHOW
INVENTING ANNA

When you’re facing a federal issue, you need an attorney whose going to be available 24/7 to help you get the results and outcome you need. The value of working with the Spodek Law Group is that we treat each and every client like a member of our family.

Client Testimonials

5

THE BEST LAWYER ANYONE COULD ASK FOR.

The BEST LAWYER ANYONE COULD ASK FOR!!! Todd changed our lives! He’s not JUST a lawyer representing us for a case. Todd and his office have become Family. When we entered his office in August of 2022, we entered with such anxiety, uncertainty, and so much stress. Honestly we were very lost. My husband and I felt alone. How could a lawyer who didn’t know us, know our family, know our background represents us, When this could change our lives for the next 5-7years that my husband was facing in Federal jail. By the time our free consultation was over with Todd, we left his office at ease. All our questions were answered and we had a sense of relief.

schedule a consultation

Blog

18 U.S.C. § 875 – Interstate communications – threats

March 21, 2024 Uncategorized

18 U.S.C. § 875 – Interstate Communications – Threats

18 U.S.C. § 875 is a federal law that makes it illegal to transmit threatening communications in interstate or foreign commerce. This law was enacted to criminalize threats made across state lines or international borders, protecting people from harm caused by threatening communications sent through mail, phone calls, online messages, etc. Let’s break down what this law covers, penalties for violating it, defenses, and some examples.

What the Law Covers

There are a few key elements that make up an 18 U.S.C. § 875 violation:

  • Transmission of a communication containing a threat
  • Threat must be to kidnap or injure a person
  • Communication transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce

The law covers any kind of threat made across state or national borders, whether through mail, phone call, email, social media, etc. The threat can be against any person and does not have to identify a specific victim. Simply making a general threat to kidnap or injure someone is enough, as long as the threat could reasonably be perceived as genuine.

Penalties

Violating 18 U.S.C. § 875 can lead to:

    • Up to 5 years in federal prison
    • Fines up to $250,000 for individuals or $500,000 for organizations
    • Probation

Restitution to victims

Penalties tend to increase for repeat offenders or if the threat is against high-profile victims like politicians or judges. The law treats these threats very seriously.

Defenses

There are a few defenses that may apply in 18 U.S.C. § 875 cases:

  • Free speech – Threats must overcome First Amendment protections for free speech. Hyperbolic political speech or jokes may be protected.
  • Mental state – The defendant must have intended the communication to be threatening or at least been reckless about how it would be perceived.
  • Misidentification – The threat must identify an actual person who could realistically be kidnapped or injured based on the communication.
  • Impossibility – A threat to injure someone who is already deceased may not be valid.

An experienced criminal defense lawyer can analyze the specifics of your case and build the strongest defense.

Case Examples

Here are some real cases prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 875:

As these examples show, online threats are prosecuted just as aggressively as threats sent through other means of communication across state lines. Law enforcement takes these cases very seriously.

Discussion

There are certainly pros and cons to having a law like 18 U.S.C. § 875. On one hand, threatening speech can cause real fear and distress, so having legal recourse seems reasonable. People shouldn’t have to worry about dangerous threats from other states. But on the other hand, setting limits on speech starts down a slippery slope. It’s hard to define what counts as a “true threat” vs hyperbole. And the penalties seem disproportionately harsh in some cases.

Personally, I think the law is too broad as written. It would be better to limit threats to specific people, rather than general threats. And perhaps require some showing that the threat is credible based on the suspect’s means and opportunity. Otherwise it risks criminalizing speech that may be disturbing but not truly dangerous. But reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line between free speech and threats.

The main takeaway is that online communications are treated the same as threats sent through other means across state lines. So think carefully before making any threatening statements, even if just intended as a joke. Prosecutors take these cases seriously, and claiming you didn’t really mean it is not a guaranteed defense.

If you find yourself accused under this statute, immediately consult with a criminal defense attorney experienced with these types of cases. An attorney may be able to get charges reduced or dismissed by raising free speech or mental state defenses. Don’t take chances – get professional representation.

 

References

Lawyers You Can Trust

Todd Spodek

Founding Partner

view profile

RALPH P. FRANCHO, JR

Associate

view profile

JEREMY FEIGENBAUM

Associate Attorney

view profile

ELIZABETH GARVEY

Associate

view profile

CLAIRE BANKS

Associate

view profile

RAJESH BARUA

Of-Counsel

view profile

CHAD LEWIN

Of-Counsel

view profile

Criminal Defense Lawyers Trusted By the Media

schedule a consultation
Schedule Your Consultation Now