[brigandish]

> explicitly not a threat

I don't see that as necessarily true. I can imagine many situations where F INSERT NAME OF ENTITY would be considered threatening. If they had F the captain of this plane, would the captain be wrong to feel threatened at all?

[joxdosba]

Name a single one of those situations, I can’t imagine any.

[brigandish]

You don't need to imagine any, I provided one already.

[willy_k]

Threatening is not the same as an actual threat. If someone stood up on a plane and yelled “bomb”, the default implication is that there is a bomb present.

If someone gets up and yells “F the captain”, it is reasonable to be fearful that they might act on that sentiment, but the statement itself is not a threat; not an expression of intention (or in the former case, presence of an object that is intended) to inflict evil, injury, or damage.

[brigandish]

Common law has dealt with this for nigh on a thousand years. If you put a person in reasonable fear that your behaviour may lead to them harming you, then they are threatening you.

The captain and established protocol follow what has been found to be useful and reasonable when on an aeroplane, not teenagers, jokers, or l33t haxx0rs, and asking people to turn off their bluetooth is reasonable, as is turning a plane around when they won't.

[willy_k]

Yes, I nor many other people are arguing that “BOMB” couldn’t be interpreted as a threat. “F the captain” does not carry reasonable fear of harm. It carries reasonable suspicion that the individual is erratic, that is all. Unless one is an HR representative, there’s no reasonable implication of harm in the statement “F the captain”.

Asking people to turn their Bluetooth off can be reasonable in certain scenarios, like that of the “BOMB” incident. Saying “F <whatever>” is not a threat.

[brigandish]

If someone in your presence were to say "Fuck Willy_k" then I'm sure you'd take that as an aggression, as would any other normal person. It doesn't need HR to know that.

[willy_k]

It’s not a threat.