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
News Brief
Earthquake Swarm Shakes Southern California Near Salton Sea
Earthquake Swarm: A swarm of earthquakes near California’s Salton Sea and Brawley area has prompted increased monitoring by seismologists as hundreds of tremors shake the region.
A swarm of earthquakes has been rattling Southern California near the Salton Sea, drawing attention from residents and seismologists across the region.
Salton Sea earthquake swarm?
The activity is centered near Brawley in Imperial County, an area known for frequent seismic movement due to its location within the Brawley Seismic Zone. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, hundreds of small earthquakes have been recorded over the past several days, with the strongest reaching a magnitude of approximately 4.7.
Residents throughout Imperial Valley, parts of Riverside County, and even portions of Arizona reported feeling shaking from several of the larger quakes. Minor incidents such as falling objects and brief power disruptions were also reported, though no major injuries or widespread structural damage have been confirmed at this time.
The region sits near the southern end of the San Andreas Fault and is considered one of California’s most geologically active areas. Scientists say earthquake swarms are relatively common near the Salton Sea because of the interaction between tectonic fault systems and geothermal activity beneath the surface.
While experts continue to monitor the situation closely, they emphasize that earthquake swarms do not necessarily indicate that a larger earthquake is imminent. However, officials encourage residents to review emergency preparedness plans, secure heavy furniture, and keep emergency supplies ready.
The Salton Sea region has experienced similar seismic swarms in the past, making it an important area of study for earthquake researchers and emergency management agencies.
For continued updates on this developing story and other regional news, visit STM Daily News.
Related External Links
- U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – Earthquake Monitoring
- California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
- California Earthquake Preparedness Guide
- Ready.gov – Earthquake Safety Tips
- USGS – Salton Trough and Seismic Activity
Stay informed with the latest breaking news, trending stories, and real-time updates from around the world on STM Daily News. Visit our Stories This Moment page for continuously updated coverage on major events, technology, transportation, science, entertainment, and more.
Authors
Consumer Corner
Frustration at the Pump: Why Americans are Exploring Electric Vehicles
Exploring Electric Vehicles: For more than one-third of Americans, one simple number is leading them to research electric vehicles: the final tally at a recent gas station fill-up. The pump is no longer just the close of a sale; for a growing number of drivers, it’s where questions begin.
Frustration at the Pump: Why Americans are Exploring Electric Vehicles
(Feature Impact) For more than one-third of Americans, one simple number is leading them to research electric vehicles: the final tally at a recent gas station fill-up.
This, according to new research from Hyundai Motor America, isn’t a hypothetical situation. In fact, 23% of respondents reported it’s happened to them more than once. For nearly half of Americans, pulling up to the pump now brings frustration or outright dread.
Many drivers have a number in mind where the math begins shifting, and once the shift happens, it rarely goes away. The pump is no longer just the close of a sale; for a growing number of drivers, it’s where questions begin.
For 23% of those surveyed, $5 per gallon is where they would start considering alternatives to a gas-powered vehicle. While some say they wouldn’t consider alternatives based on gas costs at all, this meaningful share of Americans points toward a specific tipping point.
Some begin by comparing models or brands while others find themselves on an automaker’s website, further along in the process than they initially expected to be. Most don’t act on this impulse right away, but drivers are increasingly caught somewhere between curious and committed – and 46% of those surveyed said they’d be likely to seriously research an EV.
The desire to leave the pump behind, which an EV would allow for, is a deal nearly half of respondents said they would take. However, the transition isn’t frictionless as charging access and range anxiety remain the top concerns for 28% of potential buyers.
While the move toward electric vehicles is often framed as a long-term decision made with spreadsheets and financial planning, for many Americans, it’s beginning somewhere smaller: a routine fuel stop and an eye-opening receipt.
If you’ve found yourself dismayed at the pump, find more information on electric vehicles at HyundaiUSA.com.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
eSOURCE:
Hyundai
Welcome to the Consumer Corner section of STM Daily News, your ultimate destination for savvy shopping and informed decision-making! Dive into a treasure trove of insights and reviews covering everything from the hottest toys that spark joy in your little ones to the latest electronic gadgets that simplify your life. Explore our comprehensive guides on stylish home furnishings, discover smart tips for buying a home or enhancing your living space with creative improvement ideas, and get the lowdown on the best cars through our detailed auto reviews. Whether you’re making a major purchase or simply seeking inspiration, the Consumer Corner is here to empower you every step of the way—unlock the keys to becoming a smarter consumer today!
Automotive
Gas prices have a $5 tipping point: New research shows when Americans start looking at EVs
Gas prices have a $5 tipping point: New research shows when Americans start looking at EVs
(Tiffany Miller for Hyundai) There is a moment at the gas pump when the number staring back at you stops feeling routine.
You expect the total to land somewhere familiar. And then, one day, it doesn’t. Not dramatically higher. Just high enough to feel different. Enough to make you pause before tapping your card.
According to new research from Hyundai Motor America, that moment is not hypothetical. For more than a third of American drivers, it has already happened. And for many, once it does, something shifts that does not quite shift back.
For 42% of Americans, pulling up to a pump now brings frustration or outright dread. Most have made peace with the routine, even if 39% describe their gas spend as “frustrating but expected.”
The experience at the pump hasn’t changed. The emotional weight of it has.
Most drivers have a number in their head where the math shifts. For 23% of those surveyed, $5 per gallon is where they would seriously start considering alternatives to a gas-powered vehicle. Not everyone will be moved by price, and 29% say they would not consider alternatives based on gas costs at all. But for a meaningful share of Americans, the tipping point is specific. It is a number on a sign, and many have seen it before.
More than one-third of Americans surveyed say a recent fill-up has already prompted them to research electric vehicles, and 23% say it has happened more than once.
What comes next is rarely dramatic. Some compare models or brands. Some search online. Some find themselves on an automaker’s website, further along than they expected to be. Most do not act on this impulse right away. But for a growing number, the pump is where the question starts.
The shift is real but uneven. If gas prices rose significantly and stayed high, 46% of those surveyed say they would be likely to seriously research an EV. Yet most Americans are still somewhere between curious and committed.
The pitch for electric vehicles is simple. Never stop for gas again. Nearly half of Americans say they would absolutely take that deal.
The transition is not frictionless. Charging access and range anxiety remain the top concern for 28% of potential buyers, and simple comfort with the status quo runs just as deep.
The desire to leave the pump behind is real. So is everything standing in the way.
The move toward electric vehicles is often framed as a long-term decision made with spreadsheets and incentive calculators, but for many Americans, it begins somewhere smaller. A routine fuel stop. A number that lands differently. A moment of hesitation before the receipt prints.
Methodology
Hyundai Motor America commissioned Atomik Research to conduct an online survey of 1,000 adults throughout the United States. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points at a 95% confidence level. Fieldwork was conducted between April 3 and April 6, 2026.
Atomik Research, part of 4media group, is a creative market research agency.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock (woman at gas pump)
SOURCE:
Hyundai
Welcome to the Consumer Corner section of STM Daily News, your ultimate destination for savvy shopping and informed decision-making! Dive into a treasure trove of insights and reviews covering everything from the hottest toys that spark joy in your little ones to the latest electronic gadgets that simplify your life. Explore our comprehensive guides on stylish home furnishings, discover smart tips for buying a home or enhancing your living space with creative improvement ideas, and get the lowdown on the best cars through our detailed auto reviews. Whether you’re making a major purchase or simply seeking inspiration, the Consumer Corner is here to empower you every step of the way—unlock the keys to becoming a smarter consumer today!
https://stmdailynews.com/category/consumer-corner
