Without a clear expression of threat, I don't think simple mapmaking is sufficient grounds for a terror threat charge.
Without a clear expression of threat, I don't think simple mapmaking is sufficient grounds for a terror threat charge.
It's not simple mapmaking though is it? It's creating a map inside a video game to simulate school grounds.
Drawing a map of the school and putting it in a frame on your wall? Fine.
Drawing a map, recreating it inside a first person shooter, then spending hours playing (training) memorizing the map? I believe anyone could see that as a terroristic threat.
Edit: Example Legos. Having a Lego model of the US Capital? Fine
Have a Lego Capital, attend the Jan 6 protest, have books and other militia type information? Probably going to get questioned by the feds.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-took-lego-set-of-capitol...
Moussaoui enrolled in a flight simulator training course at a Pan Am facility near Minneapolis, Minnesota. Pan Am’s Minneapolis facility used flight simulators only, and the training there usually consisted of initial training for newly hired airline pilots or refresher training for active pilots.
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/...
Right, because if they couldn't practice on a computer, schoolchildren would have no idea how to get around within their own school.
I'd like to point out that "legal" means "not forbidden by law", which in our default-allow mode means "no law exists that prohibits it". This affects both criminal charges for playing CS in a school-like map as well as the behaviour of the school in response to that.
The correct way to assess legality is therefore not "anyone could see" but "is there a law that prohibits it?"
(Note that the hurdle to expulsion may be lower than for criminal charges.)