The First Amendment to the Constitution protects Americans' right to free speech. People may face consequences for speech that other people find offensive or hateful; for instance, they may lose their jobs. However, they aren't supposed to face negative actions by the government for things they've said or written. Still, not all types of speech are fully protected by the First Amendment. The textbook discusses some of the types of speech that aren't covered, such as obscenity or libel$/$slander$.$ Threats are also not protected by the First Amendment. $($In this country, unlike in many countries, you can mock and insult the President and other government officials all you want. But, if you say want to kill the President, you can expect a visit from the Secret Service.$)$ The courts have ruled that in order to get in legal trouble for a threat, the threat must bo specific and credible. As part of your reading assignment this week, you learned about Jamal Knox, the rapper convicted of making threats in a song. He attempted to challenge his conviction on the grounds that the First Amendment protects his speech because he did not intend any harm against the police officers named in the song. Do you think that the song constitutes a "true threat," or do you think that Jamal Knox should have his conviction overturned? When it comes to determining whether a statement is a threat, which is more important, the intent of the person making the statement$-$whether they meant it as a threat$-$or whether the statement would couse a reasonable perton to legitimately fear for their safety? Threats are not legal, but people do have the right to create art that includes violent fantasies and imacerv. How do we a draw a tine between the two?