Ignoring whether or not it's valid to claim that as a "threat of violence", this article makes it sound like the prosecution's case is built upon the use of unp

Ignoring whether or not it's valid to claim that as a "threat of violence", this article makes it sound like the prosecution's case is built upon the use of unprofessional language, as opposed to any threat of violence. [edit] Certainly a threat of violence also falls under the category of "unprofessional language", but my point is that if you swapped this out with (say) a non-threatening yet equally disrespectful phrase, the case wouldn't be noticeably different.