Intent is not obvious through text, but words still have power and consequences.
You can't say bomb in airport, fire in a theatre - pretty common sense stuff. I haven't studied American anti-terrorism laws extensively, but I know enough to stay on the right side of them. It isn't that difficult.
A stand up comedian is being paid to deliver a monologue to a willing audience. That's an entirely separate context. Where "it was just a joke" was agreed upon by entering the venue and suspending disbelief. You enter an unspoken agreement with the entertainer to play along. I don't know why I even acknowledged this comparison...
And of course I think it's an excessive and self defeating punishment. No one is saying it isn't. It's the sniveling "it was just a joke" defense that only incites further belief that he should be removed from society and evaluated.
Maybe he is just a dumb kid and not a threat to public safety. Or maybe he needs psychiatric attention. His statements are indicative of such after all. So that's what he's in jail awaiting trial to be determined, instead of being flat out euthanized like a rabid animal or ignored until something horrid happens.
Nothing is that cut and dry. The legal system - and the world entirely - fall into muddled grey of uncertainty and doubt. Not a harmless teasing shade of white or evil sociopathic black, but a bit of both.
You can't side with apathy to shrug these things off all together or we would have anarchy. And you can't simply deem someone a threat (or at least unpleasant) and remove them from society entirely without due process - that would be draconian. This is landing somewhere between the two.
