Abstract
This Comment argues that federal statutes, including the jurisdictional nexus of “transmission in interstate or foreign commerce,” should require evidence that a transmission actually traveled through interstate commerce to establish the required federal nexus. Part II of this article describes what threatening internet speech is, the development of the circuit split, and the statutory criteria at issue. Part III analyzes each side of the split and examines when statutory language permits an assumption of interstate or foreign transmission. Part III also proposes adopting a strict definition of “transmission in interstate and foreign commerce” for Internet-based speech and requiring evidence that the transmissions crossed state or national lines. Part IV recommends that Congress amend the statutes in question to include unambiguous wording to utilize this test and to continue to amend as internet and social media use evolves. Part V concludes and looks at future unresolved questions.