Sending "genuinely threatening" communications such as a threat to rape, kill or cause financial harm, would become a criminal offence. Is threatening to kill

Sending "genuinely threatening" communications such as a threat to rape, kill or cause financial harm, would become a criminal offence. Is threatening to kill someone not currently illegal in the UK, or is the BBC whitewashing this law, making it seem more narrow and reasonable than it is? Again: This offence would cover "false communications deliberately sent to inflict harm", such as a hoax bomb threat. So sending hoax bomb threats is currently legal in the UK? This article is filled with red flags for deceptive reporting. So it's no surprise how vague it is about seems to be the main thrust of the law: If passed, the government's online safety bill could see social networks fined 10% of their global turnover if they fail to remove harmful content. The latest changes mean social networks will also have to proactively find and block harmful content. What does this mean? If a harmful (as defined by this bill) message is left up for more than 24 hours, it could mean a 10% global revenue fine? 'Proactively' implies they'd have to do it without being ordered to by the courts. Although 'courts', 'judicial', and 'warrant' are conspicuously absent from the text. It already stated that websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, hosting user-generated content would have to swiftly remove illegal content once it was reported to them. Reported by who? Random users? Government officials? Does a judge have to sign off on it? Are there any safeguards to prevent legal content from being removed by false reports? I thought the BBC did real journalism, but this reads little better than a government press release.