IIRC Judge Napolitano said, in summary, that when the report can be perceived as a threat meant to silence....it’s illegal. Is that right, do you know?
I believe that's right, and that's the $64,000 question here. Threats are tough, although not impossible, to prove unless they are explicit. In addition, is there valid public policy reasons to target those groups listed. Like it or not, a case can be made with guys like Eric Rudolph. It's an extreme example, but that will be argued in the government's response.
I think this lawsuit may work out well in the court of public opinion if nothing else. I wouldn't call it frivolous since an argument can be made for Savage, and valid concerns need to be addressed.