By Devin Breitenberg
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) has never shied away from bold rhetoric, but her recent statements—ranging from wishing Elon Musk be “taken down” to suggesting Sen. Ted Cruz needs to be “knocked over the head, like, hard”—have sparked debate: do her words constitute a criminal offense by suggesting violence? From a legal perspective, the answer hinges on specific U.S. statutes and constitutional precedents. While her comments have fuelled outrage and calls for investigation, they likely fall short of criminality under current law. Here’s why.
The Statements in Question
Crockett’s remarks emerged in two notable contexts. On March 20, 2025, during a live stream tied to protests against Tesla and Elon Musk, she declared, “All I want to see happen on my birthday is for Elon to be taken down.” This came amid escalating tensions, including vandalism like the March 18 firebombing of Tesla vehicles in Las Vegas. Days later, discussing political strategy in Texas, she said of Cruz, “I think that you punch… It’s Ted Cruz. I mean, like, this dude has to be knocked over the head, like, hard.” She’s also rallied activists with, “We are gonna be in your face. We are gonna be on your asses,” framing it as Democratic pushback.
Critics, including some House Republicans, have demanded FBI scrutiny, arguing her words could incite violence, especially given recent Tesla-related attacks. Crockett counters that her rhetoric is figurative—aimed at economic or political defeat, not physical harm—and insists, “Everything that I am promoting is nonviolent.”
The Legal Framework
Two key legal standards govern whether speech suggesting violence becomes criminal: 18 U.S.C. § 373 (Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence) and the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) test for incitement.
Under § 373, solicitation requires (1) intent that another person commit a violent federal crime (e.g., assault, murder), and (2) a concrete effort to persuade or induce them to act. Mere expression of desire isn’t enough; it must be a purposeful push toward law-breaking.
The Brandenburg test, protecting free speech under the First Amendment, is stricter. Speech crosses into incitement only if it (1) intends to provoke illegal activity, (2) is likely to produce it, and (3) advocates for it with imminent, specific direction—not just vague or abstract venting. Courts have long shielded hyperbolic political rhetoric unless it’s a clear, immediate call to arms.
Applying the Law to Crockett’s Words
Let’s dissect her statements.
“Taken Down” (Musk): Crockett’s Musk comment is ambiguous. “Taken down” could imply anything from bankruptcy to violence, but she clarified it as nonviolent, focusing on economic pressure against Tesla. There’s no evidence she directed anyone to harm Musk or that her words triggered specific acts, like the Las Vegas firebombing. Without a direct link or explicit intent, this fails the solicitation threshold. Under Brandenburg, it’s too vague to prove intent or imminence—more a provocative wish than a criminal act. Courts have upheld similar language as protected speech (e.g., Watts v. United States, 1969, where “shooting” a draft official was deemed non-literal).
“Knocked Over the Head” (Cruz): This sounds violent, but context is king. Crockett framed it as political toughness—“you punch… you OK with punching”—not a literal assault order. She tied it to electoral strategy, not street fights. It’s classic hyperbole, akin to saying “we’ll crush them at the polls.” No reports suggest violence against Cruz followed, and it lacks the specificity or immediacy Brandenburg demands. Solicitation also doesn’t fit—there’s no clear inducement to attack.
“In Your Face”: This is standard activist bravado—aggressive, confrontational, but not a crime. It’s about political pressure, not physical harm, and courts routinely protect such speech.
The Gray Area: Perception vs. Precedent
Crockett’s critics argue her timing and tone—amid Tesla protests and vandalism—could inspire unstable actors, even if unintended. This echoes debates over “ stochastic terrorism,” where rhetoric indirectly spurs violence. But U.S. law doesn’t criminalize unintended consequences; it demands intent and specificity. No prosecutor has filed charges as of March 28, 2025, and precedent suggests they’d struggle to win. Cases like Falwell v. Flynt (1988) and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) show courts favouring speech, even when offensive or inflammatory, absent direct incitement.
Still, enforcement isn’t always consistent. A Republican saying the same about a Democrat might face harsher scrutiny in today’s polarized climate. Crockett’s status as a sitting congresswoman adds complexity—her speech enjoys some protection under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, though that’s limited to legislative acts, not public live streams.
Legally, Crockett’s statements don’t appear to constitute a criminal offense. They’re bold, reckless to some, and politically divisive, but they lack the intent, specificity, or imminent danger required for solicitation or incitement. Free speech protections are robust, especially for politicians. Critics may see her words as irresponsible, and the FBI could still investigate if prompted, but based on current law and evidence, a conviction seems unlikely. For now, Crockett’s rhetoric remains a lightning rod—lawful, yet flammable in the court of public opinion.
Devin Breitenberg is a legal consultant and senior counsel at Devin Law LLC and legal contributor for Veritas Expositae. You can reach her at devin.breitenberg@veritasexpositae.com
Comments