How will courts determine if decades-old mob slang transforms a cryptic social media image into a legally punishable threat?

Question

Accepted Answer

Courts will decide this by asking not whether “86” once had a mob meaning, but whether the government can prove the post was a “true threat” under modern First Amendment standards. The central issue is intent. After the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Counterman v. Colorado, prosecutors generally must show at least recklessness: that Comey was aware a viewer could take “8647” as a serious call for violence and posted it anyway. That makes decades-old slang evidence relevant, but not enough by itself. A judge or jury will look at the full context: the seashell image, the audience, the timing, Comey’s explanation, his removal of the post, and whether “47” clearly referred to Trump. The Gravano interview matters mainly as contextual evidence. It may help prosecutors argue that “86” can mean “kill” and that a former prosecutor exposed to organized-crime culture might recognize that meaning. But the defense has a strong reply: Gravano said he never discussed the term with Comey, and FBI searches reportedly found no “86” references in the old Gambino case files. That weakens any claim that Comey necessarily learned the slang through his past work. Courts also weigh how ordinary people understand the phrase. Prosecutors cite slang dictionaries and argue an objective viewer could read “8647” as violent. The defense points to common nonviolent meanings of “86,” including “discard” or “out of stock,” and argues the post was protected political expression. So the case will likely turn l…

FBI Queried Sammy the Bull on Comey’s '86' Knowledge in 2-Charge Trump Threat Case

Sources

Sources

FBI Queried Sammy the Bull on Comey’s '86' Knowledge in 2-Charge Trump Threat Case

Summary

Sources

Insights

Related Stories

Sources

Related Stories