From the comments it sounds like their "threats" were threats of legal action-- that isn't likely to count as intimidation... and if he's gone far enough in co

From the comments it sounds like their "threats" were threats of legal action-- that isn't likely to count as intimidation... and if he's gone far enough in court to end up in front of a jury he would probably already be financially ruined. Now, if he asked them to leave and they didn't that would be something else. Unfortunately when you're not very wealthy the question if you'd ultimately win or not isn't very important. That's why it's important to get bright line clarity such that if they brought any claims your odds of getting a summary dismissal would be very good. Your point about the threat being limited by the specter of damage to their brand is a good one except if that were the motivation they wouldn't have opened with an in personal physical confrontation against a party with a highly visible public platform. > he could probably afford a really good lawyer from crowdfunded donations I doubt it. Sometimes that happens, but often people just blame the victim because there is always a never ending list of nitpicks ("Why didn't he tell the pinkertons they were tresspassing, ask them to leave and send a letter", "why didn't he insist on a release from the company", "he had to know this would happen when he put the video up in the first place!"). And even when the lawyers paid for, nothing can compensate you for the time, disruption in your life, and stress of being targeted.