Threats can be hard to parse because for the speaker, the point can be a very emotional self-expression, rather than some kind of accuracy of intent. One inter

Threats can be hard to parse because for the speaker, the point can be a very emotional self-expression, rather than some kind of accuracy of intent. One interpretation is: I'm going to do something insane that will make the news. It may involve the White House, and it will be worse than the Boston bombing. There will be multiple murder charges against me. Or: I'm going to publicly murder people in a fashion worse than the bombing. The last Facebook lyrics before he was arrested: I’m not in reality, So when u see me [bleeping] go insane and make the news, the paper, and the [bleeping] federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t [bleeping] cry or be worried because all YOU people [bleeping] caused this [bleep]. [Bleep] a boston bominb wait till u see the [bleep] I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me! The whole alternate interpretation (it's an insufficiently specific threat, and primarily rap braggadocio) hinges mostly on the interpretation of the inclusion and placement of the line "I’ma be famous rapping." The problem is that the kid is clearly talking about himself killing people. The whole rap perspective doesn't fix that sufficiently, especially as Rappers talk about and threaten real murders, as well as merely "bragging" about them. It certainly seems likely that he's merely trying to "sound like a rapper" rather than threatening actual harm, but the words don't really absolve him of the threats contained therein. It is difficult to parse legally: 1. Legal: It lacks imminence (Brandenburg) 2. Illegal: It does communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence (Virginia v. Black) 3. Legal: It is not directed to a particular individual or group of individuals (Virginia v. Black) 4. Illegal: The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat...a prohibition on true threats...protect[s] individuals from...fear...disruption...[and] the possibility that the threatened violence will occur (Virginia v. Black) If there was a middle ground legally for people who's intent was less harmful than their speech it would benefit this kid, but how would you prove that? And it would muddy the law's ability to fight against true threats.