@Humpleupagus @Saber @PodunkPotato @CatLord @OceanRedux The Supreme Court's entire 1A history for speech is context sensitivity, which granted led to throwing their hands up and leaving it to the states. The only rule they have adamantly maintained is that ambiguous laws cannot stand.

The problem here is that it's criminal law, not civil rights, so it's specific, but is bending the rules for extradition. Your analogy isn't wrong, but the context does matter, because the difference between a face-to-face threat and a threat posted online is that the former is credible because of immediate presence; the latter is less credible because of distance.

'Course this all raises the question of why not charge with conspiracy if the threat is credible, which may be said of red flag laws and is (imo) the most pointed criticism of those as well.