How have the courts interpreted the test for determining whether a statement is a "true threat"?

Five justices in Lowery signed a concurring opinion that explained why United States v. Bagdasarian (9th Cir.2011) 652 F.3d 1113 was "mistaken" in holding that a " true threat " requires "proof that the speaker subjectively intended the statements to be taken as a threat." ( Lowery, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 428, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 648, 257 P.3d 72 (conc. opn. of Baxter, J.).) The concurring opinion emphasized that "decisions prior to Black "almost uniformly" applied an objective standard, not a subjective standard, to determine whether a statement was a true threat and thus outside the protections afforded by the First Amendment. [Citations.]" ( id. at P. 429, 128 caL.rptr.3d 648, 257 P.3d 72.) the opinion went on to say: "One might also question the logic of resting the constitutional determination whether speech qualifies as a true threat on the subjective understanding of the speaker, without regard to whether the speech objectively would be viewed as threatening. [Citation.] A statement that

[176 Cal.Rptr.3d 559]