[Poohbah]

If there is, it's in the sense that threatening a judge over the official performance of his duties is actually threatening ALL of the "commoners" in one pass.

However, in California, verbally threatening me (a "commoner") can be charged as "communicating a terrorist threat." I think the difference between that and assault is that assault requires someone's physical presence--i.e., it has to be in person--whereas "terrorist threats" can be communicated in writing or by phone. There is an element of direct threat (i.e., not shooting one's mouth off at a bar about how one will "shoot that so-and-so"), but not the direct presence.

[OWK]

However, in California, verbally threatening me (a "commoner") can be charged as "communicating a terrorist threat." I think the difference between that and assault is that assault requires someone's physical presence--i.e., it has to be in person--whereas "terrorist threats" can be communicated in writing or by phone. There is an element of direct threat (i.e., not shooting one's mouth off at a bar about how one will "shoot that so-and-so"), but not the direct presence.

I can assure you that communicating a threat to do harm to an individual or a group of individuals (either in person, or via some medium) was already illegal in every state in the Union, prior to the introduction of any legislation specific to terrorism.