Also Kiwi Farms regularly brigades people with zero consequences.
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
This says "the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten the victim must be established based on a showing of (at least) recklessness".
I think many could argue that speech which wasn't intentionally intended to harm should not be interpreted as such, and I don't see where this makes intentional harm less prosecutable. Everyone's opinion is different, including judges of course, and I'm not saying yours is wrong, but I'd like to hear more about why you think this makes "things" harder.
Doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad, but I think it’s disingenuous to act like this doesn’t add another hurdle for prosecutors