Claiming that law is applicable in this case is an absurd stretch. The statute says: > with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her sa

Claiming that law is applicable in this case is an absurd stretch. The statute says: > with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person's immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device No reasonable person would even get a hint of that from this tweet. It is a criticism of the government's delivery of a program and the alleged misuse of public funds, a classic example of speech that serves the public interest. The idea of a government contractor claiming cyber harassment because someone pointed out their lucrative remuneration is farcical.