Weaponized Words: True Threats and the Limits of Protection

• In Event: The Power of Threats: Language, Violent Extremist Networks, and Political Violence

Abstract

This project examines the role of threats in terrorism and political violence, arguing that they constitute a distinct yet equally critical component of coercive strategies alongside acts of physical violence. While legal frameworks such as Counterman v. Colorado emphasize the need for “conscious reckless disregard,” they fail to fully capture the functional dynamics of threats in practice. Drawing on 30 in-depth interviews with election officials who received death threats during the 2020 and 2024 U.S. presidential elections, this study examines three core dimensions of a true threat: intent, specificity, and reasonable fear. Specifically, we find that context-dependent language—such as seemingly innocuous phrases like "tick-tock" or "you're a terrorist"—can gain coercive power when part of a larger pattern of harassment or coordinated intimidation. Moreover, participants discuss how subtle and non-specific threats instill reasonable fear through the use of coded language, the mode of communication, and the frequency of contact. These findings highlight the challenges election officials face in seeking protection and underscore the need for legal frameworks to better account for the cumulative and situational nature of threat-based coercion. By amplifying the voices of those impacted, this research aims to inform more effective protections and policy responses.

Authors

• Steven Windisch, University of Arkansas

• Alma June Harrison, University of Arkansas