I think the police might look at the degree or the credibility of the threat.
That was my point, ie, to differentiate
between insult & threat. The left appears
to want to conflate them for the purpose
of enforcing civility using threat of force.
It might be construed as harassment, which is still bad, but perhaps not considered as bad as an outright threat. Still, it might be viewed as threatening, as in "menacing" in some way, even if not a direct threat.
"might be viewed as" points to the potential
for paranoia to rule, & authorities to over-react.
It's just like with phoned-in bomb threats. They'll treat it like it could be real, do a full evacuation and search with bomb-sniffing dogs. Most of the time, they're hoaxes. But even if there's a 1 in a 100 chance it could be credible, it's worth taking precautions.
So, it could be nothing, but you just never know.
Anything could be more than nothing.
Insulting one's religion, age, country, political
party, ethnicity, handicap status, intelligence,
education, etc, etc.
To treat every insult as a credible threat of
physical violence based upon the invented
"1 in a 100 chance" is absurd.
Life doesn't present us with certainty. But
this is no reason to always assume the worst.
Sound judgment & reason are best.