45 L.Ed.2d 1 (1975) (Marshall, J., concurring) (“Because [§ ] 871 was intended to prevent ... the harm associated with the threat itself, I believe that the statute should be construed to proscribe all threats that the speaker intends to be interpreted as expressions of an intent to kill or injure the President.”); see also United States v. Kelner, 534 F.2d 1020, 1025 (2d Cir.1976) (“it is the utterance which the statute makes criminal, not the specific intent to carry out the threat”). Finally, the objective, reasonable person standard does not tread on free speech. Under it, the First Amendment’s protection of political hyperbole, jokes, and other constitutionally allowed speech is not diminished. See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707-08, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969) (<HOLDING>). Requiring the government to establish that
holding that the following statement conditional in nature and made at a political rally was not a true threat if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj holding a political rally for instance holding that 18year old vietnam protestor who stated if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj did not violate  871 because the comment constituted political hyperbole protected by the first amendment holding that with the commands of the first amendment clearly in mind a comment that the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj was political hyperbole which did not constitute a willful threat against the president holding utterance that if they ever make me carry a rifle upon being drafted into the us military the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj was merely a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the president and was thus protected by the first amendment