If they define menace as lawbreaker, then cypherpunks become menaces when they persist even though government has outlawed their activity.
Cypherpunk menaces have higher chance of getting away with it and nonviolence makes it easier to convince others to join you. Far more effective than traditional terrorism like the unabomber.
I plan on re-reading those two sections, but from what I recall, it was using violence as opposed to making the offender irrellevent.
I suspect the authors would agree that both engage in illegal activity, but I don't remember that being stated explicitly. Because, yeah, the laws are written by those in power, and that's who is being resisted. So of course.
