The Virginia statue is specific to the act of burning crosses, and contends that doing so is automatically considered as intent to threaten. Didn't see anything on terroristic threats and nothing on 20 year terms.
That's a fair counter- and notably, while Virigina does have some harsh penalties for threats of violence, near as I can tell, they never use the word "terroristic" as part of their drafting.
I will note, however, that every legal reference site I have looked on has noted that "every state" has laws against making "terroristic" threats. I suspect that, even without using the exact phrase, Virginia's law is known as such by state practitioners, and is probably distinguished by its penalties and definitions, possibly its legislative history.
The Texas law you reference is a misdemeanor to threaten an individual as you quoted, putting it on par with most true threat laws. The felony parts of that section all deal with groups and/or the government as the targets.
Nobody said the threat had to be "felonious", just defined as a "terroristic threat". It will still show up on your record as such, even though it is only a misdemeanor. The anonymous expungement inquiry I mentioned above noted that the conviction was interfering with the person's ability to get a job. IOW, it may only be a misdemeanor, but not all misdemeanors are crated equal.
And besides, there's also Federal law to consider.
18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
(a) Prohibited Acts.—
(1)Offenses.—Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b)—
(A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or
(B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States;
in violation of the laws of any State, or the United States, shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
(2)Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies.—
Whoever threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished under subsection (c).
(b) Jurisdictional Bases.—
(1)Circumstances.—The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are—
(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;
(Edit)
(E) the offense is committed in the territorial sea (including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon) of the United States; or
(F) the offense is committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
So, if the threat was issued by someone out of the USA, or within its territorial seas, or special jurisdictions, you can be charged under the Federal terroristic threat law.
It is unclear by it's language whether simply using the Internet to issue a threat will in and of itself support an indictment under 18 U.S. Code § 2332b(b)(1)(A) if the conduct charged originated within the United States, but I suspect it is probable. After all, the Interstate Commerce Act has been used to support actions that were solely within the confines of a single state because the activity involved some apparatus of interstate commerce such as the Internet, or broadcast media outlets that cross state boundaries.
Under
United States v. DeAndino, 958 F.2d 146 (US Ct. App. 6th Cir. 1992), email is clearly considered to be an instrument of "interstate and foreign" commerce, so the risk is there.