454 U.S. 828, 102 S.Ct. 120, 70 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981). We need not decide whether White’s speech was protected, however, since we agree with the district court and the Commission that the board’s decision was not in violation of the standards enunciated in Mount Healthy, infra. 8 . White does not claim that credible threats to kill another teacher would be protected speech under the first amendment. Cf. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942) (fighting words not protected speech); Garza v. Rodriguez, 559 F.2d 259, 260-61 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 877, 99 S.Ct. 215, 58 L.Ed.2d 191 (1978) (fighting words not protected speech); but cf. Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 706-07, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 1400-01, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 9 . A teacher’s failure to cooperate with
holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president 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 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 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