. J ." ▁W att s ▁appe aled , ▁leading ▁to ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁finding ▁the ▁stat ute ▁constitution al ▁on ▁its ▁face , ▁but ▁revers ing ▁the ▁conv iction ▁of ▁W att s . ▁▁ ▁In ▁review ing ▁the ▁lower ▁court ' s ▁analysis ▁of ▁the ▁case , ▁the ▁Court ▁noted ▁that ▁" a ▁threat ▁must ▁be ▁distinguished ▁from ▁what ▁is ▁constitution ally ▁protected ▁speech ." ▁The ▁Court ▁recognized ▁that ▁" un in hib ited , ▁robust , ▁and ▁wide open " ▁political ▁debate ▁can ▁at ▁times ▁be ▁character ized ▁by ▁" ve h ement , ▁ca ust ic , ▁and ▁sometimes ▁un ple as antly ▁sharp ▁attacks ▁on ▁government ▁and ▁public ▁officials ." ▁In ▁light ▁of ▁the ▁context ▁of ▁W att s ' ▁statement ▁- ▁and ▁the ▁laugh ter ▁that ▁it ▁received ▁from ▁the ▁crowd ▁- ▁the ▁Court ▁found ▁that ▁it ▁was ▁more ▁" a ▁kind ▁of ▁very ▁cru de ▁off ensive ▁method ▁of ▁stating ▁a ▁political ▁opposition ▁to ▁the ▁President " ▁than ▁a ▁" true ▁threat ." ▁ ▁In ▁so ▁holding , ▁the ▁Court ▁established ▁that ▁there ▁is ▁a ▁" true ▁threat " ▁exception ▁to ▁protected ▁speech , ▁but ▁also ▁that ▁the ▁statement ▁must ▁be ▁viewed ▁in ▁its ▁context ▁and ▁distinguished ▁from ▁protected ▁hyper bo le . ▁The ▁opinion , ▁however , ▁stopped ▁short ▁of ▁defining ▁precisely ▁what ▁constit uted ▁a ▁" true ▁threat ." ▁ ▁See ▁also ▁El on is ▁v . ▁United ▁States ▁ ▁References ▁ ▁Category : Fre edom ▁of ▁speech ▁in ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁Category :