You have quoted the (long) name of the law, not the actual text within. The text is currently codified as FLA. Stat. 836.10.
836.10 Written threats to kill, do bodily injury, or conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism; punishment; exemption from liability.-
[ol][li]Any person who writes or composes and also sends or procures the sending of any letter, inscribed communication, or electronic communication, whether such letter or communication be signed or anonymous, to any person, containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or any person who makes, posts, or transmits a threat in a writing or other record, including an electronic record, to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, in any manner that would allow another person to view the threat, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.[/li][li]This section does not impose liability on a provider of an interactive computer service, communications services as defined in s. 202.11, a commercial mobile service, or an information service, including, but not limited to, an Internet service provider or a hosting service provider, if it provides the transmission, storage, or caching of electronic communications or messages of others or provides another related telecommunications service, commercial mobile radio service, or information service for use by another person who violates this section. This exemption from liability is consistent with and in addition to any liability exemption provided under 47 U.S.C. s. 230.[/ol][/li]
The term “credible threat” is not used in this statute. Contrast with the stalking statute (FLA Stat. 784.048), part of which is reproduced in the below spoiler.
“Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
The standard jury instructions when it comes to a criminal charge under 836.10 are as follows (Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 8.22):
**"**To prove the crime of Written Threat to [Kill] [Do Bodily Injury] [Conduct a Mass Shooting] [Conduct an Act of Terrorism], the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
[INDENT]*There are two ways to violate § 836.10, Fla. Stat. Give as applicable.
[ol]li [wrote] [composed] a[n] [letter] [electronic communication] [inscribed communication].[/li][li]The [letter] [electronic communication] [inscribed communication] contained a threat to [kill] [do bodily injury to] [(victim)] [any member of (victim’s) family].[/li]li [sent] [procured the sending of] that [letter] [electronic communication] [inscribed communication] to (victim).[/ol][/li]Give if applicable
It is not necessary for the State to prove that the [letter] [electronic communication] [inscribed communication] had been signed.
Definitions. Give if applicable.
An “inscribed communication” is a communication that is written or printed.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon, or cause a person to do something.
The second way to violate § 836.10, Fla. Stat. is set forth below.
[ol]li [made] [posted] [transmitted] a writing or other record.[/li][li]The writing or other record contained a threat to conduct [a mass shooting] [or] [an act of terrorism].[/li]li [made] [posted] [transmitted] the writing or other record in a manner that allowed another person to view the threat.[/ol][/li]
A “record” includes an electronic record.
The statute may raise First Amendment concerns. Trial judges and attorneys should consider Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) and Saidi v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
The name of (victim) in the first set of elements 2 and 3 must be the same person.
There is no statutory definition for the term “electronic communication.” In the absence of case law, trial judges will have to fashion their own definition, perhaps by looking at § 934.02(12), Fla. Stat. and § 668.602(7), Fla. Stat. The definition for inscribed communication comes from the dictionary definition of the word inscribed. The definition of procure comes from the manslaughter standard instruction.
*The act of posting a message on social media that threatened to “shoot up” a school did not constitute a violation of law under the clause of § 836.10, Fla. Stat., that prohibits the sending of threats to a specific victim because it was not sent directly to the victims.J.A.W. v. State, 210 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In response to J.A.W., the Legislature created an alternative way to commit the crime by removing the requirement that the threat be sent to the person threatened.
This instruction was adopted in 2013 [131 So. 3d 720] and amended in 2018.[/INDENT]