18 U.S.C. § 879 – Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons

Threats Against Former Presidents: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. § 879

In the United States, threatening or harming a current or former president is a serious federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 879 specifically prohibits threats against former presidents and certain other persons protected by the Secret Service.

This law makes it illegal to knowingly and willfully threaten to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm on a former president, their spouse, or their children. It also protects former vice presidents, major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and any other people protected by the Secret Service.

Background and Purpose

18 U.S.C. § 879 was enacted in 1982 to extend protections already granted to the current president, vice president, and their families under 18 U.S.C. § 871. Congress recognized that former presidents and their families may remain potential targets after leaving office and deserve ongoing protection from threats and harassment.

The purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 879 is to allow the Secret Service to carry out its protective duties without interference. Threatening a protectee impedes the ability of the Secret Service to keep them safe. This law aims to deter people from making threats and enable prosecution if they do.

Key Provisions

There are two key components of 18 U.S.C. § 879:

1. It defines who is protected under the law.
2. It specifies what kind of threats are prohibited.

Who Is Protected?

18 U.S.C. § 879 protects the following people:

• Former presidents of the United States
• Spouses of former presidents, including surviving spouses until death or remarriage
• Children of former presidents under the age of 16
• Former vice presidents of the United States
• Major presidential and vice presidential candidates
• Any other people protected by the Secret Service

This includes not just those who served a full term, but any living former president or vice president. The law does not specify any time limit on how long ago they served.

What Threats Are Prohibited?

Under 18 U.S.C. § 879, it is a federal crime to:

• Knowingly and willfully threaten to kill or kidnap any protected person, or
• Knowingly and willfully threaten to inflict bodily harm upon any protected person.

“Bodily harm” refers to any sort of physical injury or damage to the body, even minor harm. A threat does not actually have to be carried out – just making the threat is illegal.

Penalties

Threatening a former president or other protectee under 18 U.S.C. § 879 is a felony punishable by:

• Up to 5 years in federal prison
• A fine of up to $250,000
• Up to 3 years of supervised release after prison
• A $100 special assessment fee

Sentences are determined based on the specific circumstances of each case and prior criminal history of the defendant. Additional conditions like probation or Internet monitoring may also be imposed.

Free Speech Considerations

The First Amendment protects even offensive or distasteful speech, including some hyperbolic threats that are not meant to be taken literally. However, true threats that express a genuine intent to harm or kill someone are not protected speech.

Courts have generally held that 18 U.S.C. § 879 does not violate the First Amendment because it only criminalizes real threats, not just political dissent or jokes that lack serious intent. Still, each case must be evaluated carefully to ensure the law is not used to punish protected speech.

Famous Cases

There have been a number of high-profile prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 879 and related statutes for threats against presidents and other officials:

• Frank Eugene Corder crashed a small plane onto the White House lawn in 1994. He was shot and killed in the incident. Prosecutors later claimed he was trying to kill President Clinton and charged him posthumously with threatening the president.
• James Dalton Bell was convicted in 2003 of making threats against President George W. Bush and spent time in prison. After his release, he was convicted again in 2009 for sending threatening letters to President Obama.
• Brandon Howell was indicted in 2014 for allegedly making threats over Twitter to kill President Obama and fly a plane into a building. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison.

These cases highlight how seriously threats against presidents and other officials are taken by law enforcement. Social media and the Internet have made it easier than ever to make threats anonymously, leading to a rise in prosecutions.

Criticisms

While protecting public officials from threats is important, civil liberties advocates have raised concerns about 18 U.S.C. § 879 and similar laws. Issues include:

• Vague wording that may infringe on free speech rights
• Potential for selective or politically-motivated prosecution
• Lack of intent requirements in some cases
• Harsh penalties even for non-violent threats
• Risk of overreach in monitoring online activity

Another critique is that existing laws already prohibited most harmful threats, making these enhanced statutes unnecessary. There are also concerns that threat laws have been applied disproportionately against mentally ill defendants.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld threat statutes as constitutional when confined to true threats not protected by the First Amendment. Courts continue to carefully weigh speech protections when applying 18 U.S.C. § 879.

Conclusion

In summary, 18 U.S.C. § 879 serves the important public purpose of allowing Secret Service protection of former presidents, vice presidents, and other officials vulnerable to threats. However, it also raises complex free speech issues that require careful consideration in each case. The law attempts to balance safety, security, and civil liberties – but it is still subject to criticism on all sides.

Threatening political leaders is a serious matter with potentially dangerous consequences. Yet even reprehensible speech must be protected when it does not express a genuine intent to harm. As technology and politics continue to evolve, interpretations of threat laws will remain controversial and fluid.