His article proposes a new test for determining what is a true threat. The reasonable speaker/listener test, adopted by a majority of circuits, is useful but incomplete. I add two additional elements to my test: (1) a subjective intent prong which requires the prosecution or plaintiff to prove that the speaker purposely, knowingly, or recklessly intimidated, frightened, or coerced the target; and (2) an actor prong which requires proof that the speaker explicitly or implicitly suggest that he or his co-conspirators will be the ones to carry out the threat. In addition, I develop in more detail the factors that a fact-finder should consider when applying the reasonable listener prong. Arhe addition of the actor prong is wholly novel and has not been discussed by courts or scholars to date.18 This prong is crucial to my test, and crucial to the protection of speech under any test for determining whether a true threat has been made. By requiring that there be at the very least, some implication that the speaker or his associates will be the ones to carry out the threat, greater latitude is given to speakers to use, without fear of punishment, the strong language that the First Amendment allows (Rothman 289) You decide to use this concept in your paper. You write the following: Instead of relying on the reaction of the victim, why not look at the intent of the perpetrator? If the speaker clearly intended to intimidate the victim, suggesting that the speaker him/herself or his/her cronies will commit violence against the victim then the speech is not protected Is this plagiarism?

a. True
b. False