Jan. 22 (UPI) — Violent threats and rhetoric targeting judges, poll workers and political figures are on the rise in the United States — and not just on fringe websites or platforms by organized extremist groups.
Advance Democracy, a nonprofit public interest research organization, said it has become particularly aware of threats lobbed at judges in cases involving former President Donald Trump.
Justices at the Colorado Supreme Court, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in Florida and New York Judge Arthur Engoron have received death threats, bomb threats or been “swatted.” That involves a person falsely reporting an emergency — like a shooting or a bomb threat — at a residence so responders like SWAT show up.
Daniel Jones, president of Advance Democracy, told UPI that he does not foresee these threats stopping as political rhetoric heats up this election year.
“A lot of that has to do with the election year and a lot of rhetoric spawning hate online coming from the presumptive Republican nominee for president,” Jones said of Trump’s run for re-election in November. “This is really bigger than a presidential campaign. It’s about the health of our democracy.”
Monitoring threats
Advance Democracy was founded in 2017 by Jones, a former Senate investigator and FBI analyst. He said much of his work focused on investigating terrorism. Now it’s on domestic threats.
To monitor threats and violent rhetoric, the organization monitors numerous channels, including social media — far-right platforms like Patriot and mainstream ones like Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter.
X has become more of a hotbed for violent rhetoric since owner Elon Musk cut staff who monitored disinformation and threats. Jones adds that X is not alone. Other platforms, including Facebook, have also made cuts to their disinformation monitoring teams.
“I do worry with the change in policies on these platforms that it’s coming at a time of significant upheaval and anger,” Jones said.
One of the key metrics Advance Democracy uses is terms that trend across these platforms. Terms like “Civil War” and “insurrection” trended on X following the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar Trump from appearing on primary ballots.
There were about 100,000 posts on X using those terms within hours of the court’s decision. Some of the individual posts were especially alarming, Jones said.
“We see things like ‘shoot every Democrat on sight; wipe them all out,'” he said. “On 4chan, we had somebody saying ‘kill judges, behead judges.'”
The threats have steadily increased since 2017 and are peaking at the highest they have since Jan. 6, 2021, he added.
Real world violence
The profile of the average person engaging in threats and calls to violence online is not as clear as one would expect. Jones said he cannot place them into a specific category. However, the information they consume seems to have a strong correlation with making violent comments.
Disinformation campaigns and outlets purporting to deliver news have become prevalent influencers of public discourse going back to the 2016 election cycle. Peter Adams, senior vice president of research and design for the News Literacy Project, told UPI it is important to recognize when an outlet or media source influences its audience rather than informs it.
“People really need to pay attention to their emotions,” Adams said. “If they are turning to a source of news or media outlet that consistently makes them fearful or outraged, or if they realize that their favored outlet is just echoing their biases back to them, assuring them that they’re right, they might want to broaden and diversify their media diet.”
In 2022, Ricky W. Shiffer, 42, who was an active user of Trump’s site Truth Social, attempted to breach an FBI field office in Cincinnati. Shiffer was killed in a shootout with FBI agents and the police.
Shiffer posted on Truth Social 374 times in the eight days before the attack. His posts called for violence against the FBI after it raided Trump’s Mar-A-Lago home in Florida, recovering boxes of classified documents.
“People say terrible things online and it causes some people to engage in real world violence,” Jones said. “I’m worried personally what the country looks like in the next nine or 10 months.”
Advance Democracy was one of a few sounding the alarm in the days leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. This was based on conversations among organizers and Trump supporters on multiple platforms, including TheDonald.win, a website dedicated to ardent supporters that has since been closed.
True threats
Whether Trump is legally responsible for the Capitol assault or other instances of violence that were sparked by his words continues to be litigated. Keith Werhan, professor of law emeritus at Tulane University, told UPI that whether Trump is morally responsible or legally responsible are two very different questions.
Violent rhetoric on its own does not necessarily rise to the level of criminal, without meeting certain standards. A threat must be considered a true threat to fall outside First Amendment protection.
This means it must be a serious threat that makes the person receiving it feel endangered. The person that issues the threat must also have an understanding that what they are saying is likely to make that person feel threatened, Werhan said.
“People who are calling or emailing a judge, threatening them, that is clearly a true threat and is not at all protected by the First Amendment,” he said. “Someone spouting off on social media in ways of ‘If someone decides this case wrong, they better look out,’ that’s not necessarily going to be a true threat.”
Some violent language, including political speech like Trump’s Jan. 6 call to “fight like hell,” is often understood as hyperbole.
In 1966, 18-year-old Robert Watts said at an anti-war protest after receiving his draft classification, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is” President Lyndon B. Johnson. Three years later, the Supreme Court ruled that Watts’ speech was political hyperbole and was protected by the First Amendment.
Consequences, congressional action
Some of the threats have led to arrests. In August, a Texas woman was arrested by the Department of Homeland Security for calling and threatening to kill Chutkan.
“You are in our sights, we want to kill you,” Abigail Jo Shry said in the phone call. “If Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly.”
Michael Lee Tomasi, 37, of Rio Verde, Ariz., was arrested in December on charges relating to violent threats he made on social media against federal and elected officials. He faces 10 years in prison and a $250,000 for each of the six counts against him.
Nicholas John Roske, 26, was arrested in 2022 while carrying a gun and knife near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Roske called 911 on himself and reported that he had homicidal thoughts and wanted to kill Kavanaugh. He was charged with attempted murder.
Jones says that more media coverage of arrests and punishments for people making these threats could help curb the activity. However, investigations take time.
“It takes months until the wheels of justice turn,” he said. “The FBI is still arresting people from Jan. 6.”
Another way to slow the trend is for political leaders on both sides of the aisle to loudly condemn political violence. Jones notes that this was once very common but it is not happening now.
“One of the things that has bothered us is you really need political leadership in these moments,” he said. “This means the left, right and center. Regardless of our differences, turning to violence is something we can all agree on that is intolerable. That is something we’re not seeing.”
In 2022, Congress passed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act. The law provides additional resources to the U.S. Marshals Service to protect federal judges and their immediate family members. It is named after the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed in 2020 by a former litigant who found her personal information online.
Ninety-four federal court districts with 838 facilities and about 2,700 federal judges receive protection from U.S. Marshals. Since 2019, more than 4,500 threats have been made against protected individuals.
Last year, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., introduced the Election Worker Protection Act of 2023. The bill would protect the personal information of election workers and make intimidating, threatening and doxxing them a federal crime. Doxxing is when a person’s private or identifying information is shared online.
Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani was found liable in August for defaming two Georgia election workers after the 2020 presidential election. Ruby Freeman and Wandrea’ ArShaye Moss filed a civil suit against the former New York mayor after he made unfounded claims that they mishandled ballots. They were awarded $148 million before opening a new suit against him for allegedly continuing to make false statements about them.
Adams said the people espousing threats and violent and hateful speech are likely a vocal minority, but their role in normalizing such speech can still be dangerous.
“If it becomes tolerated, that is the first step in a dangerous direction,” he said.
