To ‘86’ occasionally means to kill but usually doesn’t: A linguistic investigation into the Instagram threat charge against James Comey

A Florida man faces federal charges after posting an Instagram photo containing a seashell arrangement spelling "86 47" following James Comey's firing as FBI director. Prosecutors allege the numbers constitute a criminal threat against President Donald Trump, interpreting "86" as slang for killing and "47" as a reference to Trump's position as the 45th president.

The case hinges on a linguistic question that proves more complex than prosecutors acknowledge. The term "86" does appear in some contexts as slang meaning to kill or eliminate, borrowed from restaurant industry jargon meaning to remove an item from the menu. However, language experts note the phrase carries multiple meanings depending on context and regional usage. Restaurant workers use "86" routinely without any violent connotation. The connection between "47" and Trump requires readers to accept a specific numerical interpretation that lacks universal recognition.

Federal prosecutors must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended the message as a genuine threat, not mere political expression or ambiguous wordplay. The burden includes demonstrating the defendant's actual intent to threaten the president's life. A seashell arrangement on social media creates significant interpretive distance from a direct, unambiguous threat. Juries must evaluate whether the accused reasonably believed viewers would interpret the arrangement as a threat and whether it conveyed a serious intent to harm.

The case raises questions about prosecutorial overreach in threat cases. Ambiguous language and artistic expression occupy gray zones in First Amendment jurisprudence. Courts have previously protected political speech criticizing leaders even when employing harsh rhetoric. The question becomes whether an obscure numerical arrangement crosses from protected speech into criminal intimidation.

This prosecution reflects broader tensions between security concerns following assassination attempts and protecting citizens' right to political expression. Federal authorities maintain heightened vigilance around any potential threat to presidential safety. Defense arguments emphasizing linguistic ambiguity and contextual uncertainty present a compelling counterpoint