## Facts

- Jamal Knox and Rashee Beasley were arrested after a Pittsburgh traffic stop where police found drugs and a firearm; charges were filed and remained pending.
- While those charges were pending, Knox and Beasley wrote and recorded a rap song and made a video montage showing them facing the camera and mimicking gunfire.
- A third party uploaded the video to YouTube, and a link was posted on a public Facebook page associated with Beasley.
- The lyrics contained graphic statements about killing police officers and informants and specifically named two officers involved in Knox’s arrest who were expected to testify against him.
- A police officer monitoring the Facebook page discovered the post and informed the named officers, who testified they feared for their lives.
- Knox was charged with, among other offenses, two counts of terroristic threats and two counts of witness intimidation under Pennsylvania law based on the video.
- After a bench trial, Knox was convicted; the trial court found the video constituted a “true threat” and that the statutes’ mental-state elements were met. The intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment protects a publicly disseminated rap video containing violent lyrics directed at named law enforcement officers involved in the defendant’s pending criminal case.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to show the requisite intent for terroristic threats and witness intimidation when the defendant claimed the lyrics were artistic and he did not intend online posting.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the convictions.
- The Court held the video’s lyrics, viewed in context, constituted a “true threat” directed at the named officers and therefore fell outside First Amendment protection.
- The Court concluded the fact-finder could infer the necessary mens rea for terroristic threats and witness intimidation, including intent to threaten and intimidate, notwithstanding claims of artistry or lack of intent to post.

## Legal Principles

- “True threats”—serious expressions of intent to commit unlawful violence against a particular individual or group—are not protected by the First Amendment.
- Threat analysis is context-dependent; relevant factors include identification of real targets by name, relationship between speaker and targets, timing relative to pending proceedings, and the manner of dissemination.
- Artistic form does not immunize speech; a work may still be a punishable threat if contextual features show an intended serious expression of violence.
- A reasonable-target standard may be used to assess whether the communication would be understood as a serious threat; actual fear by targets can corroborate (but does not alone establish) threatening character.
- Mens rea for threat and intimidation offenses may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including the circumstances of creation and dissemination supporting an inference the defendant intended the threatening effect.

## Conclusion

The court held that a rap video naming specific officers and depicting detailed violent retaliation in the setting of an ongoing prosecution could be treated as a true threat, allowing criminal liability for terroristic threats and witness intimidation without violating the First Amendment.


Commonwealth v. Knox, 190 A.3d 1146 (Pa. 2018)