Disagree. True threats are specifically excluded from First Amendment Rights. A threat to detonate a nuclear device is advocacy of imminent lawless action.
But this isn’t a true threat. Nor is it incitement.
The Tweet chain goes on to explain why this fails the objective test for whether or not this is a true threat:
/2 So remember a true threat requires, at least, that a reasonable person familiar with the context would interpret the statement as a sincere expression of intent to do harm. (That’s the objective test — let’s ignore the subjective intent requirement for now).— ResponsibleDispatchHat (@Popehat) September 22, 2022
/3 So to me it’s patently implausible that a (1) college student (2) on Yik Yak (3) talking about a football game (4) can “detonate” nuclear reactor. Sounds to me like it facially fails the objective test, as no reasonable person would take it as a sincere statement.— ResponsibleDispatchHat (@Popehat) September 22, 2022
Unless there is more to the story, I don’t believe a reasonable person would see this as a “sincere expression” as an intent to do harm. It seems like a joke and is therefore protected by the First Amendment.
On the bright side, the Utes win probability for that game was 96%. So there was only a 4% chance of nuclear war.
I hope they give this woman the nickname P-Ute-in for threatening nuclear fallout.