Paranoia at its finest. Its all those key words that law enforcement focuses on. Put certain ones together and you're sure to bring the law down on top of you. A sign of the times.

Yes...it's ALL about context....hence the title of this thread....

As Wizard commented....it's not up to the police to second guess intent.  Literal interpretation of the statement is what they would be obliged to act upon .... as only AFTER an arrest/response can they determine it may just have been 'vernacular' [not common.... parochial].

so.... if you're standing in a queue at the airport, on the phone to someone, who asks you what your favourite dessert is.... and you say..."Bombe Alaska"... I wonder where that leaves you....  

and unfortunately, that goes with the territory of being...16 years old... in my experience the age for a boy when he is most off his tree is 17... they seem to go through some chemical brain imbalance where they just seem to go nuts... seen it many times... very hard to put old heads on young shoulders... no matter how much you say... 'they are old enough to know that it's wrong'... their brains just seem to be misfiring during this stage.... not saying all... of course there are some nice quiet sensible ones... but, seen and experienced enough of it to know... it's a very dangerous period for them, in many ways, with their decision making...and you're very glad when they make it out at the end of it in one piece...

yep, you wonder where it's all going to end up...

I believe it was Chapter four... of Portnoy's Complaint ....its title.  [I'll leave you to look it up]...

So if I make a joke or something about stealing your car, you should turn me in for me to be charged with grand theft auto? Nothing was done, and they have no case. It's not like the courts dont make mistakes. It's the job of the police to gather suspects and evidence to justify an arrest. Otherwise, just arrest the whole freeway, charge them all with drunk driving, speeding and reckless driving. Let the courts decide.

I think we have different ideas about the point of contention here. I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm not saying nobody should have acted on the tweet. Yes, from a certain view, it represented a threat to the people at that concert. To remove that threat, I agree he should have been taken away, questioned, and searched. That has to happen for the security of the other people. We agree up to here. Then, the concert ends, everyone leaves, there was no attack, no trace of equipment, and it's obvious he was taken out of context. You let him go. He already lost the money for the concert ticket and had a not very fun time over A MISUNDERSTANDING.

Sith.....yes, almost...except the actual heading of this thread.

The same applies with 'incitement to riot'.  There does NOT actually have to be a riot occur.

If one looks closely into 'Laws' you'll find some interesting ones.  The might seem 'absurd' but they exist for a reason...

right, because 'incitement to riot' is a perfectly straightforward law that is in no way dubious or unconstitutional.

/sarcasm off

As for the title of the thread and the end of your OP, if a riot or stampede, or mass dropping of ice cream cones had occurred... I'm certainly okay with charges going to the person for those specific acts.

my personal definition of what constitutes a charge of 'terrorism' would be for someone who through their acts cause or planned to cause the death of civilians in a public gathering, the goal being to cause a panic of the public gathering.

Did this person cause death or plan to cause death? Did he cause or intend to cause panic?  These are the questions the police should have figured out before they charged him with such a crime.

They are holding him for a crime that was not committed. This is like the seismologists being arrested for not predicting an earthquake.

That all depends on determining whether an apparent 'statement of intent' is an actual crime in itself. [I think you'll find that it is].

You do not have to light a fire first to have the shout of 'Fire!' in an auditorium be deemed a criminal act.

Your 'personal definition' is all very well but does not necessarily bear any relevance with actuality.

Do you have to demonstrate 'intent' to cause panic... or simply act/do something sufficiently irresponsible to achieve the same effect?

At the end of the day, 'intent' [or not] does not matter if the potential repercussions are the same.

are there any sources for those "charges of terrorism"? i read a few newspaper articles and could not find any.

the boy made a stupid tweet, it wasn't even a prank. no need to ruin his life.

if i only think what kind of bombs we built when we were teenagers (just for fun, we never filled them with nails) ... oh boy, these Al Qaeda pressure cookers are rather harmless in comparison ... me and my friends would all be in Guantanamo if we were born later.

It is Law Enforcement's first and most important job to ensure public safety. Therefore, the young man was found and arrested. Efficiently and without him being harmed during the process. No one was overzealous. An "Abundance of caution" was exercised, and rather well. Kudos to all involved.

Context is everything:

If you're on the street and see a long lost friend named Jack and yell, "Hi Jack!", nothing untoward will happen.

On the other hand:

If you're at the airport to pick up a friend named Jack whom you haven't seen in a long while, just yell, "Hi, Jack!" and make sure to wave your arms. You will be arrested. 

Just like you don't have to suffer actual physical harm to be in fear for your life or safety sufficiently to justify use of force in self-defense.  The threat alone is enough.

But it was not his intent, which is why it is clear that no crime has been committed.

Well, that's why I was very clear about saying it was my definition. I mostly wanted to layout where I thought such a charge should fall, regardless of how it is currently acted upon. Heck, if the definition of terrorism was saying the word 'bomb' in public (arrests and all still happen), I would be saying the same thing. In that case, the law should change because it is wrong. The trouble with a terrorism charge is that there really isn't a clear definition. That's wrong too. It needs to be clearly defined.

Clearly my definition wasn't a legal definition, but if I were to pretend it was... You're suggesting a case where someone clearly did/intended to kill civilians in a public format, but it is not clear whether they were/intended to cause public panic? Not a very likely case, I'd say. But, yes... in that case a certain recklessness on the part of the killer regarding public panic could be construed as terrorism. That would be for a jury to decide. Along with all the clear evidence of murder.

Really because everyday billions of people get in their cars to go to work or go home. Car accidents kill more people than anything else that jumps to mind at the moment. You're saying they should all be arrested because even though it isn't their 'intent' to kill someone, and even though they didn't kill anyone, they might? What about climate change? Scientists say that if everything continues, there could be affects years from now that cause deaths (severe weather, floods, droughts).... so all those people should also be arrested for also causing deaths of people that haven't even been born yet? Those mass murders! Lock them all up! Oh wait, we already lock up more people than any other country by a lot.

However, what I have read from your post suggests you think it's possible for someone to 'accidentally' be a terrorist. Not by not paying attention to who you sell weapons, fertilizer, give money to, but by saying the wrong things in the wrong place. I am 100% against this. You yourself pointed out the separate charge of 'incitement to riot'. Why have 2 charges for the same thing if both mean 'your negligence almost caused panic'?
If some drunk pilot crashed into another skyscraper, causing the same circumstances as 9/11, they are not a terrorist. Yes, they have to face the consequences of their actions. It's like murder. You can't 'accidentally' murder someone. If it's accidental, it's manslaughter. If it's not, it's murder. No, everything isn't black and white. The story in the OP is clearly white.

Words are only circumstantial (as pointed about by everyone who used the word 'context' in this post). I am also against bringing charges against anyone with only circumstantial evidence. I also believe the more severe the charge, the more solid the evidence must be. Especially now that story about the NSA recording all phone conversations, text messages and whatnot broke. 

Again, I am not saying he should not have been taken away from there as 'an abundance of caution'. The 'over-zealousness' was actually charging him with anything when they have no evidence against him. That is my point of contention.

Correct, in some places. In others, not. The reasonableness of the perception can be called into question, don't forget. 

They have the evidence.  He tweeted...and admitted to doing so.

In that respect it's a 'smoking gun'....with his fingerprints on it...and it's still in his hand.

OK, he didn't hit anyone with it...but he did 'discharge the firearm' in a public place.

Yes, I know it's an analogy...but unarguably a valid one.

And adding to that, he could have been sitting at home and tweeting the same thing and there'd be no response - no justification for action.

Again, it's about context...about the circumstances of where it occured.

When a statement you make has the potential to be construed as a statement of intent to perform a terrorist act you will find yourself responded to as if that is truly the case.  To respond otherwise is to expose yourself to a charge of criminal negligence.

How the courts deal with this particular incident should be enlightening.... and likely a sobering wake-up call to the naive....

While I agree the kid was dumb and deserved arrest, charging with terrorism is taking it to extremes. 

The boy from Warrnambool, in western Victoria, is expected to be charged on summons with uttering threats and public nuisance-related offences.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/17912876/pink-bomb-tweet-not-serious-vic-teen/ 

That is a much more reasonable approach. I think that the 'thought police' need a vacation ...