The threat doesn’t have to be real, but it has to be “violent or dangerous to human life”. The entire point of this exercise is that it isn’t, and wouldn’t be considered so by any reasonable observer. Nor is OP making empty threats of violence, as in your dirty-underwear example: in this scenario, he did exactly what he said he would.
“I demand the government do X or I’m going to fart in my Congressman’s direction at his next photo op” is not a terrorist threat, and this is about as dangerous as that would be.
Well, let’s put it this way. I think this discussion of what might or might not constitute a terrorism threat is fine on a ’net forum (hi, NSA guys!), but I really would prefer not to have to argue this issue with federal prosecutors while sitting in pre-trial confinement...
Let me remind you of the Boston case where there was no threat, no demand, no nothing, the perpetrator was a big corporation—and still the result was a $2m fine (effectively) and the firing of an executive.
Have I not made it clear enough that I think this is a stupid idea? It’s totally a stupid idea, and it will get you arrested if you try it. I just don’t think that it’s likely to crank up the terrorist paranoia machine. That machine might be idiotic and humorless and prone to overreaction, but it’s set up to pattern-match to certain things—bombs, hijackings, threats to airplanes or big dramatic monuments, guys with beards or turbans—that this doesn’t fit.
There’s a big difference between doing something that could be construed as a bomb threat, however tangentially, and aping the forms of a bad superhero movie precisely to make a point about the harmlessness of what you’re doing.
To go full trope, get a few hysterical moms screaming at the local bigwigs “The TV said there’s dihydrogen monoxide in our water supply!! OH NO!!! WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!” and there might well be pressure to make an example of the miscreant. Do you feel lucky, punk? X-D
The threat doesn’t have to be real, but it has to be “violent or dangerous to human life”. The entire point of this exercise is that it isn’t, and wouldn’t be considered so by any reasonable observer. Nor is OP making empty threats of violence, as in your dirty-underwear example: in this scenario, he did exactly what he said he would.
“I demand the government do X or I’m going to fart in my Congressman’s direction at his next photo op” is not a terrorist threat, and this is about as dangerous as that would be.
Well, let’s put it this way. I think this discussion of what might or might not constitute a terrorism threat is fine on a ’net forum (hi, NSA guys!), but I really would prefer not to have to argue this issue with federal prosecutors while sitting in pre-trial confinement...
Let me remind you of the Boston case where there was no threat, no demand, no nothing, the perpetrator was a big corporation—and still the result was a $2m fine (effectively) and the firing of an executive.
Have I not made it clear enough that I think this is a stupid idea? It’s totally a stupid idea, and it will get you arrested if you try it. I just don’t think that it’s likely to crank up the terrorist paranoia machine. That machine might be idiotic and humorless and prone to overreaction, but it’s set up to pattern-match to certain things—bombs, hijackings, threats to airplanes or big dramatic monuments, guys with beards or turbans—that this doesn’t fit.
There’s a big difference between doing something that could be construed as a bomb threat, however tangentially, and aping the forms of a bad superhero movie precisely to make a point about the harmlessness of what you’re doing.
Yeah, well...
To go full trope, get a few hysterical moms screaming at the local bigwigs “The TV said there’s dihydrogen monoxide in our water supply!! OH NO!!! WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!” and there might well be pressure to make an example of the miscreant. Do you feel lucky, punk? X-D