By Richard Luthmann
Journalists Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe have been covering the case of Virginia blogger Paul Boyne. He has been held in a Connecticut jail for over 17 months on cyberstalking charges stemming from incendiary posts on his blog, The Family Court Circus. As his case gains national attention, First Amendment scholars and legal experts weigh in on whether his statements constitute a “true threat” or protected speech.
On a recent episode of The Unknown Podcast, the co-hosts discussed prominent UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who recently engaged in a heated email exchange with Volpe. The First Amendment scholar offered his perspective on the Boyne case. Volokh contends that some of Boyne’s posts could cross the threshold into true threats, while Volpe and others argue they fall under the First Amendment’s protections for political hyperbole.
Volokh Weighs In: What Constitutes a True Threat?
Professor Volokh reviewed the arrest warrant against Boyne, which cites multiple blog posts containing graphic and provocative language aimed at Connecticut judges. Among the statements:
“Judge Moukawsher in the crosshair sight of a firearm.”
“The judicial vengeance of Judge Moukawsher begs a .50 cal to the head.”
“A quick .50 cal to the head, delivered through the back window of her car.”
In an email to Volpe, Volokh wrote:
“Seems to be plenty in the arrest warrant to yield a jury question as to true threats. Statements like these could reasonably be interpreted as threatening, especially given the references to firearms and specific targets.”
Volokh’s assessment acknowledges the gravity of Boyne’s rhetoric but leaves room for debate about intent—a key component of the “true threat” standard established in Watts v. United States (1969) and reaffirmed in Counterman v. Colorado (2023).
The Public Square or a Threat?
During a recent episode of The Unknown Podcast, Volpe and Luthmann took a different stance. They argued that Boyne’s posts, while incendiary, were public speech akin to modern-day soapbox ranting rather than direct threats.
“Paul was writing on a public blog,” said Luthmann. “He wasn’t emailing judges or leaving threatening notes on their doors. This was satire and hyperbole, not a credible threat.”
Volpe added, “If we criminalize this kind of speech, where do we draw the line? Political dissent often involves strong language. Are we going to jail every internet provocateur?”
Context Matters
The debate hinges on intent and context, both critical in First Amendment analysis.
Boyne’s posts often accompanied his criticisms of the judiciary, particularly judges involved in family court cases. He accused some judges of misconduct, such as granting custody to unfit parents, and used extreme language to express his outrage.
“Context is everything,” Luthmann emphasized. “Boyne wasn’t making clandestine plans to harm anyone. He was venting his frustrations in a public forum.”
Selective Enforcement?
Boyne’s supporters also argue that his prosecution reflects selective enforcement. On the podcast, Volpe highlighted a recent incident involving a transgender activist who made explicit death threats against Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-SC) in a viral video.
“This person said, ‘I’ll bash your face in until you’re dead,’” Volpe noted. “Yet there’s no indication they’ve been charged. Meanwhile, Boyne is sitting in jail for 17 months over blog posts.”
Joette Katz and Judicial Monitoring
Another contentious aspect of Boyne’s case involves former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz, who has been implicated in monitoring Boyne’s blog. During a 2022 Anti-Defamation League (ADL) seminar, Katz admitted to regularly reading The Family Court Circus.
Luthmann questioned Katz’s role in Boyne’s prosecution. “She’s been watching his blog from the start. Was she the one who called Judge Grossman to alert her about the posts? If so, that’s something we need to uncover in depositions.”
Boyne has accused Katz of orchestrating his legal troubles, claiming she uses her influence to silence critics.
The Stakes for Free Speech
Boyne’s case has become a flashpoint for broader debates about free speech and government overreach. His filings cite landmark cases like Watts, which protected hyperbolic speech, and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which established that speech must incite imminent lawless action to be criminalized.
“Political speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of First Amendment values,” Boyne wrote in a recent motion. “Criminalizing such speech erodes the foundation of democracy.”
Volpe echoed this sentiment. “Boyne’s speech, while offensive to some, critiques public officials—a cornerstone of the First Amendment.”
Luthmann’s Warning: When Words Fly, Bullets Don’t
Luthmann offered a stark warning about the potential consequences of over-criminalizing speech.
“When words fly, bullets don’t,” he said. “By jailing Boyne for his words, Connecticut risks pushing dissenters to abandon speech altogether. Why bother speaking if the penalty is the same as violence?”
He added, “This sets a dangerous precedent. If speech alone can result in decades behind bars, we’re entering Orwellian territory.”
The Road Ahead
Boyne’s next hearing is a bail review, during which his new defense attorneys, Kelly Billings and Dennis O’Malley, will argue for his release. Critics of the case point to Boyne’s prolonged pretrial detention—nearly 18 months—as a violation of his right to a speedy trial.
Meanwhile, calls for national attention grow louder. Supporters have urged First Amendment scholars like Volokh to weigh in further, potentially through amicus briefs.
“This case isn’t just about Boyne,” Volpe said. “It’s about whether we still value free speech in America.”
As Boyne awaits his day in court, the questions surrounding his case—about true threats, satire, and the limits of dissent—remain as contentious as ever.
Share this post