I’m not jumping in on either side, but specifically going to point to this specific issue of confusion where YOU are confused.

The other person said “threat of physical escalation”, you responded “in jurisdictions you can be charged for threatening it as well”. In other words, what you said did nothing to contradict what they said, hence why they told you to re-read what they said. Because from their perspective, your evidence for how the courts don’t necessarily align with their definitions doesn’t actually say anything meaningful because you basically just agreed with them lol