News
Threatening texts targeting minorities after election were vile − but they might not be illegal
Following the election, a surge of hateful texts targeting minorities prompted FBI and state investigations, raising questions about the balance between free speech and potential criminality.
The FBI and police in several states are investigating a wave of hateful texts and emails apparently targeting minorities across the United States following the presidential election.
The anonymously sent messages, which may have numbered up to 500,000, varied in their specific language but had similarly menacing themes. Some referred to recipients as “selected for slavery” and ordered them to a plantation to pick cotton. Others said they’d be picked up for deportation or sent to a reeducation camp.
The threats lacked details on timing, location and the like. Some addressed recipients by name, while others contained no greeting or personal identifier. They seemed to be targeting Black people, immigrants and LGBTQ people but may have been dispatched indiscriminately to a wide swath of Americans.
Information technology experts have expressed confidence that the perpetrators will be identified. Yet it’s not clear to me as a professor of constitutional and criminal law that they can be prosecuted. The First Amendment generally protects free speech, even when it’s heinous.
Free expression rules supreme
Several Supreme Court decisions have established that speech may not be punished just because it is offensive or hateful.
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” the justices wrote in Texas v. Johnson, a 1989 case that affirmed flag burning is protected expression.
Snyder v. Phelps, a 2010 case involving anti-LGBTQ protesters who carried hateful signs at the funerals of fallen soldiers, strengthened that precedent.
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain,” the justices wrote. Nonetheless, they concluded, “We cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech.”
Limits to free speech
The Supreme Court has been cautious in recognizing exceptions to the freedom of speech because of its importance to democracy and individual autonomy. Under special circumstances, however, some types of speech can be illegal.
One recognized exception is a “true threat.”
In the 2023 case Counterman v. Colorado, the Supreme Court held that for speech to cross over the true threat line, the speaker must both express an intent to commit violence and recklessly disregard “a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”
An example of a true threat under the Counterman case would be for a scorned lover to barrage their ex with messages promising to kill or maim them.
This standard is so new that it has not been tested thoroughly in the lower courts, making predictions risky at best. In my analysis, however, a message mass distributed to thousands of recipients indicating that they had been “selected” to be a slave might not meet the Counterman standard.
Additionally, “slave” is a legal status that hasn’t existed for over 150 years, so the threat to force someone into enslaved labor likely lacks both the peril of physical harm and the plausibility of harmful action. The anonymity of the senders may add to this implausibility.
Courts may also find that the communications didn’t create a “significant” risk that a “reasonable” recipient would feel threatened. An anonymous mass message may be interpreted as spam, or trolling.
Accordingly, the messages probably would not rise to the level of “true threat” exceptions to First Amendment protections.
Other exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court are speech that incites others to imminent lawlessness and “fighting words.”
Yet the November messages didn’t call others to violence, nor were their words likely to provoke it – the two hallmarks of incitement. “Fighting words,” meanwhile, require face-to-face communication that is likely to incite a violent reaction. This did not happen in the November messages, either.
So were any laws broken?
There’s another problem with any legal case against the culprits behind the November messages: What crime would they even be charged with?
The law enforcement officials who’ve pledged to get to the bottom of the matter have expressed outrage and concern, but they have not identified what law they believe was broken.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost is an exception.
“Other people have no First Amendment right to your phone, and free speech doesn’t protect telephone harassment,” Yost said in a post on X on Nov. 7 when he opened an inquiry into the hateful texts received by an an unspecified number of Ohioans.
Yost was likely referring to a 2011 Ohio statute that criminalizes telecommunications that are “threatening, intimidating, menacing, coercive, or obscene with the intent to abuse, threaten, or harass the recipient.”
The intersection of telephone harassment and the First Amendment is less clear, in my analysis. Laws vary by state, but illegal harassment and stalking typically involves physical conduct, which is not protected by the First Amendment – for example, repeated unwanted visits to someone’s home or workplace. Continually following someone in a manner intended to cause fear – or which recklessly causes fear or emotional distress – would be another example.
Could a text or email be characterized as conduct rather than speech? That is unsettled law. And where the law is unclear, novel legal strategies can set a new precedent.
If a court were to decide that the act of sending the November messages was “pure conduct,” rather than protected speech, then anti-harassment laws might be used to prosecute the senders.
Private action
Criminal law aside, people are not powerless against vile communications.
Telecommunications companies are free to block messages, both before they are received and in response to customer requests. After the wave of hateful texts in November, many did just that by closing accounts identified as sources of those messages.
If a blocked sender continues to send similar communications to a target, the elements of harassment would be met. A court could determine that to be expressive conduct or simply speech not protected by the First Amendment.
The U.S. draws the boundary widely around free speech because it enables wide, controversial discussions of politics, law and society. In this case, the senders ran up to the line of protected speech but quite possibility didn’t cross it.
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels,” the author H.L. Mencken once said. “For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
Daniel Hall, Professor of Political Science & Justice and Community Studies, Miami University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.
https://stmdailynews.com/the-bridge
The Knowledge
Where Does Federal Money Go? The Biggest Costs Behind the Budget
Where does federal money go? Part two of our National Debt Explained series examines the biggest expenses in the 2025 budget and how spending connects to government borrowing.
Last Updated on October 13, 2026 by Daily News Staff
The Knowledge | National Debt Explained, Part 2
When discussing debt, ask: Who borrowed the money? That question helps distinguish a family’s finances from the federal budget. Our first episode explained why your credit card balance is separate from the national debt. Now comes the next question: What does the federal government spend money on?
Much of it pays for retirement benefits, health coverage, national defense, public services, and interest on previous borrowing.
Social Security was the largest individual program in fiscal year 2025, costing approximately $1.6 trillion. But combine the major health care programs—including Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance subsidies—and their spending reached about $1.8 trillion, exceeding Social Security alone. cbo.gov
The figures below cover October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025.Major expense FY 2025 spending What it supports Social Security About $1.6 trillion Retirement, survivor, and disability benefits Medicare, net $988 billion Health coverage for older adults and certain people with disabilities Net interest $970 billion Cost of servicing publicly held federal debt, after subtracting interest income Discretionary defense $893 billion Military personnel, operations, equipment, and research Medicaid $668 billion Federal contribution toward health coverage and care for eligible people
These are selected expenses, not the entire budget. Medicare spending is shown after premiums and other offsetting receipts. The combined health care total already includes Medicare and Medicaid, so it should not be added to those rows. cbo.gov
The government also supports veterans’ health care, transportation, education, housing assistance, courts, law enforcement, scientific research, disaster response, and environmental protection. Nondefense discretionary spending totaled approximately $980 billion in 2025, covering many of these services. Some funding for these areas falls elsewhere in the budget. cbo.gov
Federal spending falls into three broad groups:
- Mandatory spending: Payments governed by existing eligibility rules and benefit formulas, including Social Security and major health programs.
- Discretionary spending: Funding lawmakers control through appropriations legislation, including most defense spending and many public services.
- Net interest: The expense of servicing publicly held federal debt, minus government interest income. cbo.gov
Interest deserves attention because it pays for borrowing already undertaken. In 2025, net interest exceeded discretionary defense spending. Congressional Budget Office
A program’s cost does not automatically translate into an equal increase in national debt. Taxes and other receipts finance much of federal spending. Social Security and Medicare’s hospital insurance program receive dedicated payroll taxes, while Medicare also collects premiums.
In 2025, federal spending totaled approximately $7 trillion, compared with $5.2 trillion in revenue. The roughly $1.8 trillion shortfall was the deficit, requiring borrowing. Understanding national debt therefore means examining both what government spends and what it collects. cbo.gov
Explore more explanations behind the headlines at STM Daily News, home of The Knowledge.
Sources for this episode
- CBO: The Federal Budget in Fiscal Year 2025 — Overview of spending, revenue, deficits, and debt interest.
- CBO: Mandatory Spending in Fiscal Year 2025 — Breakdown of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other benefit programs.
- CBO: Discretionary Spending in Fiscal Year 2025 — Defense spending and services including transportation, education, and veterans’ health care.
- CBO: Overview of the FY 2025 Budget Infographics — Highlights the largest expenses and broader budget trends.
Related reading
- U.S. Treasury: Understanding the National Debt — What federal debt represents and how borrowing works.
- U.S. Treasury: Understanding the National Deficit — Explains the difference between an annual deficit and accumulated debt.
- U.S. Treasury: Federal Spending — Additional context about where federal money goes.
Daily News
Whose Debt Is the National Debt?
The national debt isn’t Americans’ credit card balances added together. This simple explainer separates federal borrowing from household debt and explains the difference between debt and a deficit.
Last Updated on October 11, 2026 by Daily News Staff
The Knowledge | STM Daily News
When you hear “national debt,” do you picture everyone’s credit card balances added together? The name can create that impression, but the national debt and household debt measure different borrowing.
The U.S. national debt is money the federal government owes. Your personal credit card balance is not included.
Federal debt versus household debt
The Treasury defines national debt as the federal government’s total outstanding borrowing accumulated over the country’s history. Household debt covers borrowing by individuals and families, including mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, and student loans.
|Type of debt |Who borrowed? |Examples |
|————–|————————|————————————————–|
|National debt |Federal government |Outstanding Treasury securities |
|Household debt|Individuals and families|Credit cards, mortgages, auto loans, student loans|
Putting a $500 purchase on your credit card increases your personal balance. It does not add $500 to the national debt.
How does the national debt grow?
When federal spending exceeds tax collections and other revenue, the government runs a budget deficit. Treasury sells securities to borrow money to cover the gap.
Consider a simplified, hypothetical example: the government collects $5 trillion and spends $6 trillion in one year. That leaves a $1 trillion deficit requiring financing.
A deficit measures a shortfall over a period, usually a year. Debt measures outstanding borrowing accumulated over time. Repeated deficits generally increase that debt. Interest on existing borrowing is also a federal expense.
Does paying off your credit card reduce the national debt?
Paying off a card reduces what you owe your lender. It does not directly repay Treasury borrowing. Household debt and government debt can influence the same economy, but they remain separate obligations.
When discussing debt, ask: Who borrowed the money? That one question helps distinguish a family’s finances from the federal budget.
Find more explanations of the ideas behind the headlines at STM Daily News, home of The Knowledge.
Sources
● U.S. Treasury: Understanding the National Debt
● U.S. Treasury: Understanding the National Deficit
● Federal Reserve Bank of New York: Household Debt and Credit Report
Science
October Meteor Showers Give Phoenix Skywatchers a Reason to Look Up
Phoenix skywatchers have several chances to catch October’s meteor showers. Here’s when to watch the Taurids and Orionids—and how moonlight affects the view.
Last Updated on October 10, 2026 by Daily News Staff
PHOENIX — October is bringing several opportunities to spot shooting stars over the Valley, with the Draconids reaching their October 8–9 peak and more meteor activity ahead.
The Draconids remain active through October 10, although viewers should expect a light display as the peak passes. Under favorable conditions, the shower typically produces only a handful of meteors per hour. timeanddate.com
Next, the Southern Taurids have an annual activity peak around October 14. Known for occasional bright fireballs, the shower continues into November. The stronger Orionids peak on the night of October 21 into the morning of October 22, typically producing 10–20 meteors per hour under dark skies. A bright Moon will interfere with this year’s display. American Meteor Society
The Orionids originate from debris left by Halley’s Comet. For Phoenix viewers, the best opportunity will be after moonset and before dawn, weather permitting. City lights will further reduce the number visible. amsmeteors.org
NASA recommends finding a viewing area away from streetlights, allowing about 30 minutes for eyes to adjust, and watching a broad stretch of sky. No telescope is needed—just a comfortable chair and patience. NASA Science
ECurious about what’s happening above us? Explore more space stories and science explainers in The Knowledge at STM Daily News.xplore more space, science and everyday
