The purpose of the first amendment is to allow people to criticize governmental officials without fear of them using their powers of office to enact revenge upon the speakers. It was a rejection of the common abuse of power that English authorities engaged in with people who criticized them.
It's scope and intent was never to permit threats of violence directed at members of the government. That is a bridge too far to claim first amendment protection, and I don't care that a 1969 Liberal court enshrined their stupidity into legal precedent.
Even in that decision they acknowledge that threatening the President is illegal, they just didn't think that what Watts said met the level of seriousness necessary to constitute a violation of the law.
Given the kooks we have nowadays, I think all such interpretations of "intent" should err on the side of caution. The United States Republic will not suffer any great loss of freedom if a strict interpretation of laws against threatening the Presidency are enforced.
So what you’re saying is that you think our #FirstAmendment rights are too robust in 2017, and you think they should be constrained by the more narrow definition you’ve outlined above?