With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to punish her for exercising her free speech rights.’ ” (quoting Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 868 F.2d 943, 954 n. 4 (7th Cir.1989) (citing Bart, 677 F.2d at 622))). And it has been adopted or reaffirmed by a majority of our sister circuits. See, e.g., Welch v. Ciampa, 542 F.3d 927, 937 (1st Cir.2008) (recognizing retaliatory harassment may be actionable under objective test); Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 976 (9th Cir.2003) (same); Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 928 (8th Cir.2002) (same); Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576, 584-85 (D.C.Cir.2002) (same); Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673, 679-80 (6th Cir.1998) (same); Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 325-26 (2d Cir.1996) (same). But see McLaughlin v. Watson, 271 F.3d 566, 573-74 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Colson v. Grohman, 174 F.3d 498, 513-14 (5th

A: holding that in the first amendment employment context harassing speech must constitute constructive adverse employment action to be actionable
B: holding that what is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech
C: holding that the crime of knowingly and willfully threatening the president required only that the threat be made under circumstances where a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom it is addressed as a serious threat and not be the result of mistake duress or coercion
D: holding that speech must be a threat or coercion to be actionable
D.