Of course, you cannot argue that threats are up to interpretation by saying that somehow someone could interpret an almost universal greeting as a threat.

If you don't have the sensibility to differentiate what constitutes a threat I'll offer you the explanation to develop such nuance: a threat is a "vow to cause harm or injury to others (including their property)"

You can claim whatever you want, the matter of fact is that you cannot demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt to convince a jury.

As for pep rallies, you ought to consider things before you express them, with common sense and sensibility, otherwise, why should anyone consider what you said as coherent or sensible (common sense)? Don't it seem as if you expect others to know the difference between whats a threat and what isn't and what's figurative and literal by the context its used in, such as a pep rally, unless you want others to deem you a threat to society and lock you up for good cause, or do you expect people who seemingly don't observe the difference between a threat and a greeting to freely walk around?

Posted using Partiko Android