Don't forget, if the government doesn't need a warrant or other court order to do something, it's not illegal for anyone to do it.
After all, both private citizens and the government are bound to obey statutory law, but the government additionally must comply with the Constitution.
The government has an easier time getting a court order to allow something, but absent that court order has less freedom than ordinary citizens.
Wiretap/interception laws are a good example of this -- intercepting the content of communications is 100% illegal without a warrant. There is no government exemption to the warrant requirement, since that requirement was intended specifically for the government. If the government does not need a warrant to do something relating to intercepting communications, then neither do you.
Doubtless some shill or apologist will disagree with me -- but the thing is, absent an exception written into the laws, the government cannot have it both ways. Either it's legal or it's not. Even with such an exception, the exception might be unconstitutional and illegal if the exception overrides fourth amendment protections.
More accurately: We want to know if we can be sued for giving away data we shouldn't have.
If the government jumps through the right hoops, AT&T cannot be sued for complying with the law. But if the government does not meet those requirements and AT&T capitulates anyway, AT&T COULD be sued for the data breach.
The broadcasters are not in business to broadcast content, that's the lure they use to get people to buy their actual product -- eyeballs watching screens. They then sell those watching eyeballs to advertisers, which is where they make their money.
The thing is, they discovered they could get paid more than once for what they were already doing, by charging cable providers for showing people the broadcasts -- note that technically speaking, what a cable provider is buying is the lure, not the ads, although cable providers are usually prohibited from stripping out the ads by contract.
As a result, the broadcasters get paid a third time -- because the cable company customers get to see the ads too.
If it's legal to redact every word in a document relevant to a FOIA request that does not step on any of the exempt types of data, then it would be equally legal to redact documents in response to a government subpoena.
Somehow, I don't think the Department of Homeland Security would be amused if someone did it. And yet, it's just as legal when the Department does it.
Consider as well that multinational corporations and organized criminal organizations often have budgets that rival small nations -- It's not just foreign espionage to consider when spy agencies are buying back doors and zero-day exploits, it's the big time criminals as well.
In a way they already do -- under copyright law, it's not just one-sided with the rights owners having rights and no one else, consumers have statutory rights too. But DRM frequently prevents the exercise of those rights, and it's illegal to circumvent DRM.
Given the way DMCA violators are pursued, it's not a very big step from there to terrorists.
A pentagram is a symbol of protection against demons/evil. For it to be a threat it would need to be inverted (pointing down instead of up). But even then, it's still a religious symbol and probably protected speech.
But I agree, stating he will sacrifice children is at least vaguely threatening. It's not necessarily explicitly threatening however, since sacrifices take many forms -- you could sacrifice someone's self-esteem by heckling them, for example.