“This ain’t a threat. This is called freedom of speech.”
That line is in a voicemail an Arkansas man left for a Massachusetts member of Congress in February 2025, according to a federal indictment quoted by WHDH. Federal prosecutors in Boston say it was a threat anyway. David Czerniak, 62, of Hatfield, Arkansas, was arrested Wednesday, October 7, 2026, on a grand jury indictment charging him with two counts of interstate transmission of threatening communications, WCVB, NBC10 Boston and WHDH reported.
Whether a profane, angry message about politics is protected speech or a federal crime is a question the Supreme Court has answered several times, most recently in 2023. Here is what the indictment says, the law behind the charge, and what happens next. Czerniak is presumed innocent, and it was not immediately clear whether he had a lawyer, NBC10 reported.
What the indictment says
- February 2025. Czerniak left a voicemail at a Massachusetts congressional office for one member of Congress, according to the indictment as quoted by WHDH. After complaints about immigration and federal spending, the message said: “you and any of your family members will pay the consequences and would be responsible if any of these f****** illegal immigrants harm my family and friends in any way. It’s called an eye for an eye. This ain’t a threat. This is called freedom of speech.”
- December 2025. A second voicemail, for a different Massachusetts member of Congress, said in part: “if another ICE agent, federal agent, any of them get hurt, you better watch your f****** backs. It’s an eye for an eye.” It continued: “Remember what Timothy McVeigh did? Remember what happened to Charlie Kirk? Next time you people stand at a podium, you better f****** duck.”
- The indictment refers to the two members only as “Public Official 1” and “Public Official 2.” Neither has been publicly named, NBC10 reported.
- Czerniak was arrested in Arkansas and appeared in federal court in the Western District of Arkansas on Wednesday afternoon. He will appear in federal court in Boston later, WHDH reported.
“Threats of violence against elected officials are not protected speech. They are federal crimes,” U.S. Attorney Leah B. Foley said, according to WCVB. The head of the FBI’s Boston office, Ted Docks, said disagreements over politics “must never escalate into threats or acts of violence,” NBC10 reported.
The charge: 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)
The federal statute is short. Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
- Interstate. A phone call from Arkansas to an office in Massachusetts crosses state lines. That is what makes it a federal case, and why it was brought by federal prosecutors in Boston, where the messages were received.
- The penalty. Up to five years in prison on each count. WCVB reported the maximum as five years per count plus up to three years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine. WHDH reported a maximum of 10 years, which matches the two counts combined. Any actual sentence would be set by a judge under the federal sentencing guidelines.
- “A threat to injure.” The statute does not define “threat.” The courts have, and that is where the First Amendment comes in.
Where free speech ends: “true threats”
The First Amendment protects speech that is crude, hateful and offensive, including speech aimed at politicians. It does not protect “true threats.” In Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), the Supreme Court described true threats, quoting an earlier case, as “serious expression[s]” conveying that a speaker means to “commit an act of unlawful violence.”
Two parts of the law matter most.
1. What the words convey, in context
The classic case is Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969). At a public rally, a young man facing the draft said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.” He was convicted of threatening the President. The Supreme Court reversed. “We do not believe that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner fits within that statutory term,” the Court wrote, pointing to “the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners.”
The Court also said political language “is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.” Profanity and anger alone do not make a statement a threat. What a jury looks at is the whole message, where and how it was delivered, and how it would reasonably be understood.
Both sides in a case like this one can be expected to look at the words closely. The first voicemail is framed as conditional (“if any of these … harm my family”). The second refers to a deadly bombing and an assassination and tells the listener to “duck” at the next podium. Prosecutors say those were threats. A defendant can argue they were political venting. Which one they are is ultimately a question for a jury, and nothing in Watts means a conditional statement is automatically protected.
2. What the speaker understood
In Counterman, the Supreme Court held that the government must prove the speaker had “some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature,” but that the First Amendment requires “no more demanding a showing than recklessness.” The Court explained that a person acts recklessly when he “consciously disregard[s] a substantial [and unjustifiable] risk” of harm. Applied to threats, that means prosecutors do not have to prove the speaker actually intended to carry anything out, or even intended to frighten anyone. It is enough that he was aware others could take his words as a threat of violence and said them anyway.
That is why a line like “this ain’t a threat” does not settle anything on its own. A speaker’s own label is evidence of what he understood, and a jury can weigh it. It does not change what the rest of the message conveys.
What happens next
- Transfer to Boston. Czerniak was arrested in Arkansas on a Massachusetts indictment. After his first appearance there, he is to be brought to federal court in Boston, WHDH and WCVB reported.
- Arraignment and detention. In Boston he will be arraigned on the indictment and enter a plea, and a magistrate judge will decide whether he is held or released on conditions pending trial.
- Trial or plea. The government has to prove each count beyond a reasonable doubt, including the threat and Czerniak’s state of mind. As with most federal cases, a plea agreement is also possible.
Frequently asked questions
Who is David Czerniak?
A 62-year-old man from Hatfield, Arkansas, indicted by a federal grand jury in Boston on two counts of interstate transmission of threatening communications over voicemails left for two Massachusetts members of Congress in February and December 2025. He was arrested October 7, 2026 and is presumed innocent.
Which members of Congress were threatened?
The indictment does not name them. It refers to them as Public Official 1 and Public Official 2, and they had not been publicly named as of October 7, NBC10 reported.
Is it a crime to leave an angry voicemail for a politician?
Not by itself. Insults, profanity and harsh political criticism are protected by the First Amendment. A message becomes a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. 875(c) if it contains a true threat to injure someone and the sender was at least reckless about how it would be understood, under Counterman v. Colorado (2023).
What is the maximum penalty under 18 U.S.C. 875(c)?
Up to five years in prison per count, and a fine. Actual sentences are set by a judge under the federal sentencing guidelines and are often well below the maximum.
Does saying “this is not a threat” protect you?
No. A jury looks at the whole message in context and at what the speaker understood. A disclaimer is evidence, but it does not control the outcome.
Sources: WCVB, NBC10 Boston and WHDH, October 7, 2026, including indictment language as quoted by WHDH and statements by U.S. Attorney Leah B. Foley and FBI Special Agent in Charge Ted Docks. We did not obtain the indictment itself. 18 U.S.C. 875(c) read at the Legal Information Institute. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), and Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), read on CourtListener. David Czerniak is presumed innocent. General information about the law, not legal advice.