By Richard Luthmann
Virginia blogger Paul Boyne has been in jail for nearly 18 months, charged with cyberstalking judges after publishing controversial satirical posts on his blog, The Family Court Circus. While Boyne’s case continues to spark First Amendment debates, a recent graphic online threat by a trans activist against Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-SC) has drawn comparisons that highlight stark inconsistencies in handling such speech.
The activist’s video, which went viral, explicitly threatened Mace with violence:
“I hope that one day I do find her in that woman’s bathroom, and I grab your ratty-looking hair… bash it in until the blood’s everywhere and you’re dead.”
Despite the graphic language, there’s no indication that the activist has faced legal consequences comparable to Boyne’s.
Boyne’s Case: Satire or True Threats?
Paul Boyne’s blog routinely targeted Connecticut’s judiciary, particularly family court judges. Some of his posts used provocative language, such as suggesting someone might “exercise their Second Amendment rights” in response to judicial misconduct. Boyne has argued these statements were satire, akin to political hyperbole, protected under the First Amendment.
“Boyne’s words, though incendiary, weren’t direct threats. They were criticism wrapped in exaggerated language,” said Michael Volpe on The Unknown Podcast.
“If we look at the case law—like Watts v. United States—it’s clear hyperbolic statements don’t meet the standard for ‘true threats.’”
The Counterman Standard and Boyne’s Intent
In the recent Counterman v. Colorado case, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that determining a “true threat” requires examining intent. Did the speaker intend to intimidate, or were the statements meant for attention or satire?
“Boyne’s intent wasn’t to harm anyone,” said Richard Luthmann. “He was shining a spotlight on what he viewed as corruption in the Connecticut judiciary. His posts were meant to provoke thought, not violence.”
Luthmann contrasted Boyne’s actions with those of the activist who targeted Congresswoman Mace.
“The activist explicitly stated their violent intent. Yet there’s no indication of an investigation or arrest. How is that not a double standard?”
The Role of Power and Reach in Threat Assessment
Another critical factor in determining threats is the relative power of the speaker. As Luthmann explained, “Boyne was a lone blogger operating out of Virginia. He had no real platform beyond his blog. Contrast that with someone like a politician or celebrity whose statements carry far more weight.”
Volpe added, “The activist targeting Mace had the explicit intent to ‘go viral.’ While Boyne’s posts might have been sensationalist, they weren’t directed at anyone with the intent to incite action.”
The Broader Implications for Free Speech
Boyne’s case resonates with legal scholars and free speech advocates, as it raises questions about government overreach and the weaponization of cyberstalking laws to silence dissent. His case aligns with Dombrowski v. Pfister, where the Supreme Court ruled against government actions that suppress speech under the guise of law enforcement.
“Boyne’s detention for criticizing judges should alarm anyone who values free speech,” said Luthmann. “It’s not about whether you agree with what he said—it’s about whether we allow the government to criminalize dissent.”
Why Isn’t This Consistent?
The disparity between Boyne’s treatment and that of the activist targeting Mace highlights inconsistencies in how the justice system addresses speech.
“If the activist isn’t being charged for a graphic, direct threat against a sitting congresswoman, why is Boyne sitting in jail for satirical statements?” Volpe asked. “This isn’t about public safety—it’s about selectively silencing voices.”
A Call for Fairness and Legal Consistency
The podcast hosts called for consistent application of the law, arguing that selective enforcement undermines public trust in the justice system.
“Boyne’s case isn’t just about him—it’s about the chilling effect on free speech,” said Volpe. “If we allow governments to silence critics under vague ‘cyberstalking’ laws, dissent itself is under threat.”
As Boyne’s case proceeds to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, advocates are urging legal scholars like Professor Eugene Volokh to intervene. Volokh has defended similar cases involving online expression, including People v. Relerford and Mashaud v. Boone, which struck down overly broad cyberstalking laws as unconstitutional.
“Volokh’s involvement could shine a national spotlight on the First Amendment issues at stake,” said Luthmann. “This is exactly the kind of case he’s championed before.”
The Question for America
Boyne’s case, compared with the activist’s viral threat against Nancy Mace, underscores the growing tension between free speech and government authority. As Boyne’s appeal moves forward, it remains to be seen whether legal scholars, advocates, and the courts will uphold the principles of free expression or allow selective enforcement to erode them.
“If we don’t defend even unpopular speech,” warned Volpe, “we risk losing the foundation of all our freedoms.”
Key Legal Precedents
Watts v. United States (1969): Hyperbolic political speech isn’t a true threat.
Counterman v. Colorado (2023): Intent matters in assessing true threats.
Dombrowski v. Pfister (1965): Government actions chilling speech violate the Constitution.
People v. Relerford (2017): Overbroad cyberstalking laws struck down.
Mashaud v. Boone (2023): Speech critical of officials is constitutionally protected.
Share this post