Whether the First Amendment, Post Counterman v. Colorado permits a criminal conviction for retaliatory speech which is inherently threatening not on the basis of its objective expression but rather because of the grossly disparate worldviews held by the sender and his recipients?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , 1. Whether the First Amendment, Post Counterman v. Colorado permits a criminal conviction for retaliatory speech which is inherently threatening not on the basis of its objective expression but rather because of the grossly disparate worldviews held by the sender and his recipients? To wit, does the Constitution permit imprisonment of a person on the basis that his speech caused fear in its’ intended recipients due in part to starkly different worldviews held : by the respective parties? Is it constitutionally tolerable to imprison the . expositors of radical speech on the basis that said speech can be inherently fear-producing to its non-radical recipient? i i