General Threats to Kill Jews and "Zionists" Can Be Punished
An excerpt from a longish opinion by Judge David Alan Ezra (W.D. Tex.) Monday in U.S. v. Griffin:
Defendant was indicted on four counts of Interstate Transmission of Threatening Communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The counts were based on, and quoted, statements posted by Defendant on the social media platform Gab. The statements included in the Indictment are as follows:
- I'm just a random nobody in the US and I can pick any synagogue I want and go postal on it and the president will be visiting the place the next week to pay respects to his real masters. Your theater kid shit will be easy to play and as soon as I get an organized group of men willing to act on it we are going after your ass zog trash. {"Zog" is an acronym for "Zionist Occupation Government."} I don't care about trump, and I wouldn't even live to see him there most likely assuming I jihaded any place, but the team would have all your moves laid out in advance and they'd be waiting. The first attack would just be the bait. And then we'd hit you again at the funeral once the more important people showed up to grift.
- Zionists do not have the authority to lecture me on sexual morals or anything else. They're criminals and I am going to kill them.
- If I'm NEVER getting a family or a house in shithole America what else do I have to do better than KILL my state representatives? God that sounds awesome. I want them to die so bad. Like I'm looking up what is their schedule, where are they and when so I can potentially kill them. That's how FUCKING PISSED I am about America ripping me off.
- My Goal for the next 10-20 years is to get hot girl I can have kids with, 10 acres of land to live on, stable income to support my family. And if I can't get that as upper middle class white collar educated heritage US guy then I am going to attack the federal government and kill their employees or the US military. Right now – looking like terrorism is my better option. I like JD Vance meme. It's not a joke for me. We are going to fucking kill you. You are going to make this deal available to me or I am going to start building bombs.
The Grand Jury also made special findings in the Indictment regarding two of the charged counts. First, regarding the statement "I can pick any synagogue I want and go postal on it," the Grand Jury alleged that Griffin "intentionally selected any synagogue as the object of his threat because of the actual and perceived religion of persons associated with synagogues." The second special finding was that Griffin "intentionally selected the victims of his threat because of the actual and perceived religion of such persons," regarding his statement that "Zionists do not have the authority to lecture me on sexual morals or anything else. They're criminals and I am going to kill them." On July 28, 2026, Defendant entered a plea of Not Guilty….
Defendant's primary argument is that his statements are not true threats as a matter of law because they contain hyperbolic, conditional language that could not reasonably be understood as a serious expression of intent to cause harm. In support, Defendant emphasizes that his threats did not identify a particular victim or specific location for any planned attack. He also points out that some of the threats are preceded by conditional language, including, "as soon as I get an organized group of men willing to act" and "[i]f I'm NEVER getting a family or a house in shithole America." …
[S]ome communications are constitutionally protected as a matter of law, such as when no reasonable jury could interpret the communication as conveying a serious expression of intent to cause violence…. [But i]n this case, … a jury is needed to resolve contested factual issues. Although the parties agree on basic facts like who made the statements, what they said, and to whom they were communicated, the parties genuinely dispute whether the statements could reasonably be interpreted as threats. This disagreement carries weight because Defendant's threats do contain some language that could be viewed as hypothetical, abstract, or conditional. The role of the factfinder will thus be crucial in determining whether such hyperbolic language, when paired next to more direct language like "[w]e are going to fucking kill you," "convey[s] a real possibility that violence will follow."
Here, at least some viewers of Defendant's Gab posts found their content alarming because viewers reported the posts in online tips to the FBI. For this reason, as well as those explained below, the Court disagrees with Defendant's contention that his statements are constitutionally protected as a matter of law.
The Court is also not persuaded that Defendant's statements are protected because they are mere hyperbolic expressions of frustrations with the current political environment. Of course, it is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment that citizens may criticize their government. And some statements expressing political hyperbole, such as a mere "offhand comment during a political rally," may not be serious and direct enough to warrant classification as a true threat. It is also true that other cases feature true threats that identify a more specific target victim or precise location than the threats made here.
Even so, for purposes of the First Amendment question, the Court finds that the statements made by Defendant fall within the true threats category. The fact that a statement contains political content does not mean it cannot constitute a threat. Nor does a statement need to define a specific target—or be directed to an intended victim—to be interpreted as threatening…. [T]rue threats do not "turn[ ] on whether a speaker names individuals or merely places them where those individuals are likely to be" …. "The language of [Section] 875(c) does not require that the threat be made directly to the intended target." … The Fifth Circuit has explained that a "threat's lack of particularity is relevant only insofar as it tends to negate an assertion that an objectively reasonable listener would conclude that threatened violence will occur."
Applied to this case, the Court finds that reasonable people could interpret Defendant's statements as seriously expressing an intent to commit violence against Jewish persons and government employees. His failure to name any one individual victim or a specific location, such as by referencing a particular synagogue, does not place Defendant's clear threats to injure others in the realm of constitutional protection. {As a reminder, these threats include: "I can pick any synagogue I want and go postal on it," "[A]s soon as I get an organized group of men willing to act on it we are going after your ass zog trash," "[W]e'd hit you again at the funeral," "[Zionists are] criminals and I am going to kill them," "I want [my state representatives] to die so bad … I'm looking up what is their schedule, where are they and when so I can potentially kill them," "It's not a joke for me. We are going to fucking kill you," and "You are going to make this deal available to me or I am going to start building bombs."}
Nor does the fact that Defendant here broadcasted his threats to a public audience. The threshold question is whether Defendant's communications satisfy the definition of true threats—"statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals." Defendant may later persuade a jury to find in his favor based on the conditional language that is present in the threatening communications, but he has not shown at this stage that "no reasonable jury could find the allegedly criminal statement[s] to be true threat[s]." …
For cases allowing threats prosecutions over similarly general threats to kill "MAGA," "blacks," and "Christian[s]," see "See MAGA, Shoot MAGA" in TikTok Video Was Criminally Punishable Threat.
AUSA Matthew B. Devlin represents the government.