A joke is intended to make you laugh, a threat is intended to convey a threat. Mike do you know the difference between a joke and a threat. A threat of terror to be more precise.

this is not a prank call and it was not done as a joke..

The only two people who said it was a joke, is the arresting cop and his laywer. Not even the guy who said it said it was as a joke.

He said it was done out of anger and frustration, Mike,, anger and frustration is not a joke !!!

And who are you to decide if what he said to nearly 500 people can be considered a threat, sure it is not a threat to you as you are no where near the airport.

But if you are working at that airport, and HAVE to be there, there someone saying that are going to blow up your place of work IS a threat, and it might, and probably will instill fear into any normal person.

Especially if they are at that airport.

So it was not a message to a ‘few close friends’ it was a broadcast to about 500 people, and it was publicly available to millions of people.

So only Mike, his defense lawyer and a cop think it was a joke, no one else sees it as such, they see it for what it is, and what it was intented to do, instill fear into the people at the airport.

“Do something about the delays OR ELSE”. is a threat..

If it is a joke, then Mike let us in on the punchline..

The punchline will be that guy going to prison for being heavily fined for causing or instilling terror, and making a threat to a national and federal asset.

And if they could fine him for being stupid they would do that as well.. I would

“get [its] shit together” he was going to “[blow] the airport sky high!!””

?Hyperbole (, from ancient Greek ‘exaggeration’) is a rhetorical device in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

What do you really mean when you say “…again confusing what someone says with intent.”?

I mean, as if it wasn’t plain the first 3000 or so times I said it (note the hyberbole there), that for those words to be considered a threat in any meaningful sense they must be:
A/ Backed with an intent to follow up the words with action

B/ Shown that he may have the physical means and knowledge to carry out such an action
and
C/ Be directed in some way towards the “object” of the words rather than to a random group of unconnected people

As Mike said, to investigate such a statement is acceptable, but to arrest following determination that the statement fails not 1 but all 3 of those measures is absurd.

You suggest that it is the responsibility of the speaker to guard their words and to some extent that may be true but are you seriously suggesting that there is not a concurrent responsibility on the receiver of those words to consider motive, context and intent when hearing or reading them?
(and in case you missed it that’s the answer to your question “Why is it a dumb idea?”)

Or have you simply had a sense of humour bypass and are incapable of perceiving words to convey anything other than the litteral dictionary meaning?

Oh, and by the way, such meaning can still be multiple and also cultural as well as changing with time. Example? How would you react if I called you a “Berk”? You may well be confused as a non-brit as the word is colloquial. If you were a brit you might be mildly offended as it is a mild swear word that generally translates as something like “one who has acted or spoken in a non-sensible way”. If on the other hand you were a Londoner of perhaps 40-odd years ago you might start making threats of your own as the entomology is from the cockney rhyming slang “Berkshire Hunt” meaning a highly insulting word for a woman’s vagina.
Conclusion: Words mean very little without context, motive and intent.