A “TSI charge” is not an actual offense in Texas law. The phrase circulates online, but what people are almost always describing is a terroristic threat under Texas Penal Code Section 22.07. Depending on who was threatened and why, that charge runs from a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail to a third-degree felony carrying two to ten years in prison. The classification turns on the speaker’s intent and the target, not on whether the threat could realistically have been carried out.
What the Statute Actually Prohibits
Section 22.07 criminalizes threatening violence against a person or property when the threat is made with one of six specific intents. The law does not require the ability or the plan to follow through. What the prosecution has to prove is the purpose behind the communication.
- Provoking a response from an official or volunteer emergency agency.
- Placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
- Preventing or interrupting the use of a building, room, place of assembly, workplace, or public space.
- Causing impairment or interruption of public communications, transportation, water, gas, power, or other utilities.
- Placing the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury.
- Influencing the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of federal, state, or local government.
These categories aren’t just descriptive. Each one carries its own charge level, and the gap between them is wide.
How the Charge Level Is Decided
Two things set the classification: which intent the state proves, and who the target was.
Class B Misdemeanor
A threat intended to provoke an emergency response, or to place a single person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, is a Class B misdemeanor in most circumstances. This is the floor.
Class A Misdemeanor
The personal-fear version steps up to a Class A misdemeanor when the target is a family member, a household member, or someone in a dating relationship with the defendant, or when the target is a public servant. Threats aimed at disrupting a building, workplace, or public space start at Class A regardless of who owns the space.
State Jail Felony
Two situations push the offense to a state jail felony. The first is a personal-fear threat directed at someone the defendant knows is a peace officer or a judge, under Subsection (c-1). The second is a disruption threat that causes the owner of the building or place pecuniary loss of $1,500 or more.
Third-Degree Felony
Three of the six intents are automatically third-degree felonies, with no lesser option: threats aimed at disrupting public services, threats placing the public or a substantial group in fear of serious bodily injury, and threats intended to influence a government body. Prosecutors don’t need an additional aggravating factor; the intent itself is enough.
Penalty Ranges
The sentencing ranges come from the Penal Code’s punishment chapters rather than from Section 22.07.
- Class B misdemeanor: up to 180 days in county jail, a fine up to $2,000, or both.1State of Texas. Texas Penal Code 12.22 – Class B Misdemeanor
- Class A misdemeanor: up to one year in county jail, a fine up to $4,000, or both.2State of Texas. Texas Penal Code 12.21 – Class A Misdemeanor
- Third-degree felony: two to ten years in a Texas Department of Criminal Justice facility, plus a possible fine up to $10,000.3State of Texas. Texas Penal Code 12.34 – Third Degree Felony Punishment
Courts may also order restitution for emergency response costs, which comes up when bomb squads, evacuations, or large law enforcement mobilizations followed the threat. Bail in felony cases tends to run high, and judges often impose pretrial conditions restricting the defendant’s social media use.
Federal Exposure for Online Threats
A state terroristic threat charge is not always the only one on the table. Because the internet crosses state lines, a threatening message sent through social media or a messaging app can also be prosecuted federally under 18 U.S.C. ยง 875, which covers threats transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce.
- Threatening to kidnap or injure a person: up to five years in federal prison.
- The same threat made with intent to extort: up to twenty years in federal prison.
- Threatening to harm property or reputation to extort money or anything of value: up to two years in federal prison.
Each of these offenses also carries a fine.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 875 – Interstate Communications Federal prosecutors tend to get involved when the message crosses state lines, targets federal employees or institutions, or surfaces in an active FBI or DHS investigation. One post can produce state and federal charges at the same time.
Consequences That Outlast the Sentence
A conviction follows the defendant well past the jail or prison term, and these collateral effects rarely get the attention they deserve during a plea discussion.
Firearms. Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from buying or possessing firearms, so any felony-level terroristic threat conviction triggers a lifetime federal firearms ban. A misdemeanor can also trigger a ban if it qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” which is possible when the target was a family or household member.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 922 – Unlawful Acts
Employment and licensing. A conviction appears on background checks and can disqualify an applicant from jobs requiring security clearances or positions of trust. The TSA permanently disqualifies people convicted of offenses involving threats related to transportation security incidents or false bomb threats from holding credentials that provide access to secure areas of airports and maritime facilities.6Transportation Security Administration. Disqualifying Offenses and Other Factors Licensed professions, including teaching, nursing, and law, use character and fitness reviews where a threat conviction raises serious problems.
Immigration. For non-citizens, a felony terroristic threat conviction can trigger deportation proceedings or make a person inadmissible for future visa applications and green card petitions. A misdemeanor can also complicate status depending on how the offense is classified under federal immigration law.
The First Amendment and the “True Threat” Standard
Not every alarming statement is a crime. The First Amendment protects political hyperbole, emotional venting, and harsh rhetoric. The line courts draw is at “true threats,” which fall outside constitutional protection.
The U.S. Supreme Court sharpened that line in Counterman v. Colorado (2023), holding that prosecutors must prove the speaker had at least a reckless mental state. The government has to show the defendant was aware that others could view the statements as threatening violence and sent them anyway. A purely oblivious statement is not enough for a conviction, even if the recipient was genuinely afraid.7United States Courts. Facts and Case Summary – Counterman v. Colorado Before Counterman, some courts allowed convictions based only on whether a reasonable person would see the statement as threatening, without weighing the speaker’s awareness at all.
That recklessness requirement is now the most powerful defense in a terroristic threat case, particularly where social media posts, song lyrics, dark humor, or video game and movie references are taken out of context.8Congress.gov. True Threats
Other Common Defenses
Beyond the mental state argument, a few defenses come up repeatedly.
Protected speech. If the statement reads as political hyperbole, artistic expression, or emotional venting rather than a genuine communication of intent to harm, it falls outside the statute. The audience, the medium, and any prior history between the speaker and the alleged victim all shape the analysis.
Lack of specificity. A vague expression of frustration is different from a targeted statement identifying a specific person, place, or plan. The threat generally has to be concrete enough that a reasonable person in the recipient’s position would take it seriously.
Evidence challenges. Digital evidence can be manipulated, screenshots can be fabricated, and accounts can be hacked or spoofed. Defense attorneys often scrutinize the chain of custody for electronic evidence and whether law enforcement followed proper procedures when obtaining it.
Because the charge level and the collateral consequences shift so sharply based on specifics the police report may get wrong, anyone facing an accusation under Section 22.07 should get a Texas criminal defense attorney involved before speaking to investigators.