Talk:Terroristic threat

Controversial v uncontroversial cases

If you're going to list controversies, also include Josh Pirrault: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/02/second-teen-spends-months-in-jail-for-video-game-threat/

And a less-controversial example should be listed as well; including a discussion of the frequency of threats tied to intended action (assuming secondary sources can be found willing to estimate that). – SJ + 21:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Justin Carter

This section did not once tie the subject to the topic of the article, just a billion source smear campaign. Try a rewrite here that ties the subject into the article in a way that indicates why, of all the terrorist threats ever issued, this is the most i important and only person to mention in the article, getting that info from reliable sources, also. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC))

How is this a smear campaign, and who's doing the smearing? It's a well-known tragic news story and it's definitely notable. --George100 (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Then put it where it belongs, tie it into any article you put it in, and cite it propely, but don't just throw junk around, anywhere, about a person without tying it into the article. You said not one thing about "terrorist threat" in three sentences with a dozen citations. Want to talk about apricot yogurt in this article also? As if you didn't even know what article it was in. I see that you thought it was funny enough to link LOL in the edit summary. Ha ha. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC))

First off, Did you actually read my edits? The LOL and jk was QUOTING him. I did NOT think it was funny, nor would I ever use "LOL" in an edit summary in that way. The point being, HE used those terms in his post to indicate that he was joking about the threat.

Second off, you should have noticed, I didn't add those references the article, I used Reflinks to update them in this edit. So perhaps you should be careful about whom you are smearing? --George100 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to care. Still, if you don't, and since you can't relate him to the topic and you idn't add the info to the article and whoever added it didn't relate it to the article there was nothing to discuss here. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC))

So you throw out ridiculous accusations and now you don't care? That's nice. --George100 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Almost as nice as kidnapping and owning an accusation. You're welcome. --(AfadsBad (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC))

"Kidnapping" and accusation? I have no idea what this even means. Your arguments are incoherent and nonsensical. --George100 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's a problem and it's mainly caused by a single edit, then the single edit would I think be this one, not made by either of you. It looks well intended but careless, and it results in references irrelevant to Carter being used to "source" material about Carter.

It's better to be very wary of discussing Carter as he's otherwise non-notable (I suppose), is a minor (if I understand correctly), and has been charged with but not found guilty of something that (in a society that IMHO is paranoid) is taken seriously.

It's certainly good manners to make certain that a given user was the person who perpetrated something before knocking them for perpetrating it, and to assume good faith. And, if you later find that you've made a misattribution or other mistake, then to (wo)man up and admit it.

Now, what's to be done about this article? I tentatively suggest some amalgam of the best of this old version (no mention of Carter) and the best of this recent version (good references). But I don't claim to be experienced or knowledgable about the treatment of this kind of material. -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Link to my offending accusation, and I will strike it out.

Please note that the material you are suggesting be added back about Carter does not discuss a terrorist threat.

This article, however, is about "terroristic threat." Carter was the only person mentioned, without a clear explanation. He is a living person.

So, as suggested, if you bring a living individual into this article, the sources should indicate why he is notably connected to "terroristic threat," and this should be stated in the article, and, because he is a living person, and the only person mentioned in the article in connection with this, the citations should also include why and how, from the reliable sources, this kid is the most notable person associated with "terroristic threat" to such a degree that a brief article with only three sources merits an entire paragraph about him with so many sources, at least one of which isn't even about him.

And, yes, associating a minor with an article called "terroristic threat" without elaborating, and making him the only living person associated with the article is a smear campaign.

This is what BLP rules are designed to prevent, as in stop it before it happens, not adjust it afterwards to make sure the material stays in. (AfadsBad (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC))

As the history of the article will show, I've edited the page, first doing what I suggested doing, then throwing out pointless references, and then fiddling with the phrasing. I hope that the result is OK. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the sentence is vague beyond comprehension, "The arrest and prosecution of people for threats meant non-specifically or humorously has led to criticism.[4][5][6]" Criticism of what? The law? Sources 4 and 6 don't criticize the law, they merely report two cases. Carter is mentioned in the headline of two of the sources, again unduely emphasizing him in the article without any source saying that his case deserves to be the only one mentioned by name, twice within such a short article. Source 5 says the cases are not widespread, and the criticism is related very specifically to First Ammendment rights, but the vague sentence does not give this information, a civil rights group criticized the law or the cases or the case against Justin for violating his civil rights, it's unclear; another source showing that "arrest and prosecution," both, have led to more than one report of criticism, rather than two articles just reporting Carter's case without criticizing the law, is needed. Please remove the sentence, and sources 4 and 6 which don't support it, and discuss the sentence here before re-adding it to the article. Still waiting to strike out my accusation against George. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC))

Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been busy with WP-unrelated stuff. ¶ Yes, the sentence is indeed vague beyond comprehension; and so far as it can be comprehended the sources adduced for it are merely compatible with it rather than backing it up. ¶ I don't routinely either keep up with news stories about this kind of issue or read any particular US news website, but I do keep an eye on theguardian.com. This has at various times written up and discussed cases where people in Britain who've been young, drunk, foolish or some combination (rather than malevolent, crazed or crusading) have made "threats" of this kind on the interwebs and got into major trouble; but the term "terroristic threat" isn't used and the First Amendment obviously doesn't apply. The single biggest fuss was over the "Twitter Joke Trial" but there have been others. Wikipedia might well benefit from an article encompassing this and what's written up in this CSM article, but I've no urge to create it myself. ¶ At least until better sources appear, this material is better deleted from this article (an article that itself is rather strange, seemingly unsure of whether it's about a concept, a term, or a term in Texas law). -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Threats against the President

What about Lady Gaga and her threat to kill Trump ? What about the female comedian who held up a bloody head of Trump? These are serious verbal threats of a sitting president. Why were they not arrested and charged? 2600:100C:B226:B55E:1865:6DA4:797E:D925 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how this relates to anything in this article. It is not a political piece just an objective definition of what terroristic threat means Amicuswiki07 (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Article Reform and Example Statutes Category Reform

I would love some input on some of these changes. I think because this article has such a strong bias towards the United States maybe the article can be changed to just be what terroristic threat as a crime is in the US? I also think the example statutes category needs to be overhauled, It seems strange to have "example statutes" and then it's just a bunch of random states like California or Texas with just copy pasted statutes and elements there. Maybe a Federal section, where you can put the MPC and the federal statute and then a separate section just explaining how states have sometimes differed in codifying the elements of the MPC or the federal statute in their own criminal code. Amicuswiki07 (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)