It's not actionable when it's a rando in an online multiplayer game upset at you. It's absolutely actionable when it's your jilted lover in your face, or even if they're texting you.

The details make the case. Coaxing in detail throngs online to attack immigrants, in my non-legal non-expert opinion, seems to be more in the actionable case.

> It's not actionable when it's a rando in an online multiplayer game upset at you. It's absolutely actionable when it's your jilted lover in your face, or even if they're texting you.

> The details make the case.

That's pretty much what I was saying, as well, I believe.

In and of itself, saying (even in person) "I'm going to kill you" is an idle threat that the police in my state will not do anything about in a vacuum.

However, saying such a thing while also being in a position to reasonably carry out such an action, the Police will step in on those threats.

In the situation you described, unfortunately, the first time they may just tell the couple to stay at different places that night to cool off. This assumes by the time they arrive there are no visible marks on the victim and no weapons out.

Now if they have to come out for several of these calls, it's no longer "in a vacuum", and they can probably detain the threatening person.

Your state or country's police force may operate under different rules and laws.

The purpose of (most) speech is to create action. If the phrase "I'm going to kill you" is intended to alter someone's behavior. If property is involved, whether it's through force or threat of force, it's still robbery. If the threat of violence is delayed, it's still extortion.

For libertarian extremists who, just treat the right to be left in peace to live your life as you see fit... as a property right.