Relationship Between Language in Threatening Communications and the Threatener\'s Potential Risk for Violence

¶ … 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 communication is also difficult to define because it can be either a shouted voicing of intent, a polite mention of menacing goals toward another person, or a mere backrub which induces sexually unwanted feelings in the recipient. 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 regard to language in some type of threatening communication which shows that the threatener means to conduct a violent act. Violence in itself is some sort of act that causes harm to another person or to property (Miller & Flores, 2007). The harm can be physical, psychological, emotional, or structural. The person who commits the violent act does not have physically touch their intended victim to induce harm. Much as the Supreme Court has stated, if a reasonable person believes that the act caused damage to them or their property, then it constitutes a violent act (Rothman, 2001).

Language as a Precursor to Violence

Of course language does not have to be spoken or acted. It can also be written or conveyed through some other form of media. Communication can originate through many different types of devices, but how does the reasonable person determine if the threat, no matter how it is delivered, will result in violence on the part of the communicator (Rothman, 2001). The actual question of the study has to do more with the person communicating the threat, than the person receiving the communication. Many communications are a bluff. No actual intent is behind the words. However, if the words are received in a nonchalant manner, the communicator may escalate to a previously unintended violence. From the words, it may not be able to determine the individuals intent, but the person who receives the threat may have a lot to do with whether the threatener will commit violence (Erbert & Floyd).