When the Founding Fathers drafted the First Amendment, they enshrined the principle of free speech as a cornerstone of democracy. The right to express ideas, even controversial or unpopular ones, without fear of government reprisal is foundational to the concept of liberty. Yet, cases like that of Briana Boston—a Florida woman arrested for a statement made in frustration during a phone call—challenge our assumptions about whether this right truly exists in practice.
Boston’s case raises important questions about the boundaries of free speech, the scope of laws regulating threats, and the potential for misuse of the criminal justice system to punish individuals for protected expression. As a former criminal defense attorney, I see cases like this as pivotal moments to examine whether we actually enjoy the freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution, or whether the enforcement of vague and overbroad statutes undermines it.
The Facts of the Case
Briana Boston, a 42-year-old woman from Florida, was charged under Florida Statute 836.10 for allegedly making a threat during a heated phone call with her insurance company. Her words—”Delay, deny, depose. You people are next”—were interpreted as a threat, potentially referencing a recent act of violence. Law enforcement arrested her, citing the need to address threats of mass shootings or terrorism. But at what point does an expression of frustration cross the line into criminal conduct?
It is important to note that we do not have all the facts of this case. Statements made during an arrest or in charging documents may not fully capture the context or intent behind the accused’s words. However, even with limited information, cases like this warrant a strong presumption in favor of free speech protections.
What Does the First Amendment Protect?
The First Amendment protects speech broadly, even if it is offensive, provocative, or upsetting. However, it does not protect what courts call “true threats,” which the Supreme Court defines as statements in which the speaker intends to communicate a serious expression of intent to commit violence against a particular individual or group (Virginia v. Black, 2003).
Boston’s statement, however, lacks the hallmarks of a true threat:
- No Specific Target: Her comment was directed broadly at “you people,” a vague term that fails to identify a specific person or group.
- No Express Intent: The context of the statement—a dispute over an insurance claim—suggests frustration rather than an actual intent to harm.
- Ambiguity: The phrase “You people are next” is open to interpretation and does not explicitly describe a violent act. Ambiguity in speech often falls on the side of protection under the First Amendment.
The Role of Overbroad Laws
Florida Statute 836.10 criminalizes written or electronic threats but does not require the state to prove that the speaker intended to carry out the threat. This overbroad application of the law chills speech and allows for subjective interpretations by law enforcement and prosecutors. When a frustrated statement made during a private phone call can result in arrest, it’s clear that the statute’s reach extends beyond “true threats” and into territory that is constitutionally protected.
Overbroad laws often give law enforcement disproportionate power to target speech they find troubling, even when it poses no actual threat. This case exemplifies how vague statutes can erode First Amendment protections by punishing individuals for words rather than actions.
The Real-Life Impact of Chilled Speech
Cases like Boston’s have a ripple effect. When people see individuals arrested for statements made in frustration or jest, they begin to self-censor. Speech is not truly free if the threat of arrest or prosecution looms over those who dare to speak their minds.
From a former criminal defense attorney’s perspective, the problem is twofold:
- Selective Enforcement: Vague statutes are often enforced unevenly, targeting certain individuals or groups based on subjective interpretations of their speech.
- Resource Drain: Prosecuting cases like Boston’s diverts resources from addressing real threats and violence, undermining public safety rather than enhancing it.
Where Do We Go from Here?
Boston’s case underscores the need for careful scrutiny of laws that regulate speech. Courts must ensure that statutes are narrowly tailored to address genuine threats without criminalizing constitutionally protected expression. Additionally, law enforcement and prosecutors should exercise greater discretion to avoid overreach.
If we allow cases like this to proceed unchecked, we risk eroding the very freedoms the First Amendment was designed to protect. The right to express frustration, anger, or dissent—even in imperfect or offensive ways—is essential to a free society.
Conclusion
Do we truly have freedom of speech? Briana Boston’s case suggests that the answer is complicated. While the First Amendment guarantees broad protections, the enforcement of vague and overbroad statutes can undermine those rights in practice. As a former criminal defense attorney, I lean in favor of preserving the broad protections of free speech. The outcome of this case will not only determine Boston’s fate but will also set a precedent for how far the government can go in policing speech that challenges, provokes, or frustrates.
True freedom of speech means tolerating discomfort and ambiguity. Anything less is a compromise we cannot afford to make.
Legal Feed 
Leave a comment