if you just look at the statute that this court is going to consider tomorrow, 2113, termented terment ed interpreted in carter. no intent element. no specific intent element. >> i degree with you no specific intent. that is you don't have to have it to be your purpose. that's why i use the model terminology which for me is easier. you don't have to visit as your purpose. but do you have to know the elements of the defense. >> you just have to know what you're doing. >> all right. you have to know what you're doing. and you have to communicate a true threat. >> the petitioner is not disputing that he knew the words he was saying. we're not disputing that the government has to show that individual is aware of the words that they're speaking. the dispute here is over whether the government has to show that petitioner actually intended to cause fear or today mr. elwood proposed moving down a level to knowledge. he proposed moving to recklessness. when congress passed the statute, it intended to capture all of those people by making no intent element in the statute beyond the knowledge wha