18 USC 875(c) prohibits transmitting in interstate or foreign commerce a communication containing a threat to kidnap someone or injure another person. The statutory maximum is five years of imprisonment, with a possible fine. A threat need not be carried out, but the government must establish the required elements and mental state. [1]
Threatening speech has a constitutional boundary
The First Amendment distinguishes true threats from protected expression. Context matters: surrounding messages, the audience, the relationship between the parties, and how the communication was delivered can affect what it conveys. Offensive language is not automatically a punishable threat, and a later “just joking” explanation is not automatically conclusive.
Counterman v. Colorado requires a subjective mental-state showing in true-threat prosecutions and recognizes recklessness as a constitutional minimum. The federal statute and controlling decisions can require additional proof. Do not replace the statutory analysis with a rule that a reasonable recipient’s fear alone always suffices. [2]
The commerce requirement matters too
The prosecution must establish transmission in interstate or foreign commerce. Electronic communications can raise this issue even when the sender and recipient are in the same state, but the actual transmission evidence and controlling law matter. The mere fact that a statement exists online does not eliminate every element.
Section 875 contains other subsections involving ransom demands and extortion. Subsection (c) does not require every element of those different offenses. Conversely, its five-year maximum does not describe the penalty for all conduct charged under section 875. [1]
Useful evidence in a disputed case
- The entire conversation, including earlier and later messages.
- Account ownership, device access, and authorship evidence.
- Metadata or other transmission records.
- Evidence relevant to the alleged meaning and sender’s mental state.
Preserve original records and avoid contacting the recipient to argue about the allegation. A new message can create additional evidence or violate an order.
Compare threats sent through the Postal Service under section 876. federal impersonation concerns a different offense that can arise in communications but has different requirements. If you receive an immediate credible threat, contact emergency services and preserve the message rather than responding in a way that escalates the situation.
Primary sources
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.