¶ … people use threatening language, in what context, and when threatening words are a precursor to violence. Words can hurt, but at what point to the words actually precede a violent act. Many times a person will threaten violent action, but their hand will be staid by some unknown factor. The actual act is a function of both the threatener's intent and the strength of their desire to carry out the action (Jameson, 2004). Threat is accomplished in both the words that are used and the attitude with which they are presented (Erbert & Floyd, 2004). It is not the use of threatening words then as much as how the user, at first, intends them to be heard.

The best definition of threat may be one that the Supreme Court uses to determine if language is a "true threat" (Rothman, 2001) or not. Courts deem that unless a threat is truly intended to cause harm it is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. What the court has determined is that a true threat the "reasonable speaker" or "reasonable listener" test (Rothman, 2001). "These tests essentially amount to an evaluation of whether or not a reasonable recipient of the statement would believe it constituted a threat" (Rothman, 2001). However, this, in and of itself, is not a helpful definition since even the different district courts differ in their determination of reasonable, and the Supreme Court has never chose to define what a reasonable person and an unreasonable person are.

Threatening...

Since language can be spoken and unspoken, threatening communication can also be either (Erbert & Floyd, 2004). When person is smiling, but they are using words that belie that physical symbol, it could be difficult to recognize whether the intentions of the speaker are violent or not. When the threatener is shouting it seems like a good outward cue that they are excited and close to a violent confrontation, but that is not always the case. As Joshua Gunn (2010) notes, public displays of speech that would once have been induced shock or even arrest are looked at as normal occurrences these days. The effect that media has had on the degradation of language and the normalcy of all forms of communication has had a profound affect on what is considered threatening communication (Gunn, 2010). What was once considered polite, and reasonable, is now seen as more threatening (such as some sexually harassing communications (Erbert & Floyd, 2004)) than shouted, but unintended, threats (Rothman, 2001). Threatening communication then is any communication to another person which could be construed as voicing a deleterious intent against that person (Jameson, 2004).
The final term to define is violence. The original question for this study was with…