Is Everyone a Terrorist?

Is it just me, or is the the term terrorist being overused?

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, there were talks of a body scan "opt-out" day, where people would undergo the pat downs to protest the scans, that might be thought of as obtrusive. Commenting on this, Whoopi Goldberg said that she thought that the mass opt-out was an act of terrorism.
Here is a clip of the comment:

Additionally, Wikileaks founder, Julian Assage, was called a "high tech terrorist" by Republican Senator Mitch McConnell. Here is the transcript from Meet the Press.

According to my dictionary, terrorism is "the use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

In the case of the body scan "opt-outers" there was neither violence or intimidation involved. These people were exercising their right to choose between the two screening methods. This is not terrorism, it is a peaceful protest. Inconvenient? Yes. Inefficient? Yes. Terrorism? No.

Now, in mentioning Julian Assage, I will not (at this time) comment if he is right or wrong in posting the information that he has posted. I will only attempt to assess if his actions fall under the definition of terrorism.

Well, he did not engage in violence or intimidation in posting the leaks. Therefore, this could not be counted as an act of terrorism either.

Now, both of these instances might have had political aims, but just because one has political aims, does not make them a terrorist. The protests in the 60's had political aims, but they were not counted as acts of terrorism. Why should these be counted as such?

In overusing the word terrorist, we end up shifting the severity of events. Can the people who refused the body scans be declared equals to the people who committed 9/11?

Calling the people that refused body scans terrorists suggest a criminality to their actions, when there is none. Additionally, it trivializes the actions that really are terrorism.

People never change. This is just a repackaged form of McCarthyism.