Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Death Threat Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (27)	6/22/1998 6:46:00 PM
From: John Sladek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 408

To Marcos, or anyone else who has received a death threat, or who has had false information posted about them on SI: Just out of curiosity, and of course if you don't mind saying so, have any of you shown the thread threat(s) or posts containing false information to your local police or to a lawyer, and if so what was their response? I would assume that threatening to kill somebody, and knowingly spreading false information, is illegal in most civilized countries. Maybe someone on this thread is a lawyer or police officer (or knows one) and they might explain wether it it worth starting some sort of legal action. I am curious about this, because, although I have not received a death threat yet, I do sometimes post negative things about companies (only those that deserve it) so it is entirely possible that I might get one yet (given the increase in nastiness on SI these days). I do not know what jurisdiction you live in, but for your information, I have reviewed my copy of the 1971 Canadian Criminal Code (although it may have been amended - since I notice that flogging is listed as a punishment for certain crimes) and it states: [* START SECTION 331 ] 331 (1) Every one commits an offence who by letters, telegram, telephone, cable, radio, or otherwise, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat (a) To cause death or injury or damage to any person, or (b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property, or (c) to kill, maim, would, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person (2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years. (3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (1)(c) is guilty of (a) an indictable offense and is liable for imprisonment for two years, or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. The phrase "or otherwise" is restricted to means of communication within the category or common to the class enumerated in the section where the communication was not facilitated by one of those specific methods: R. vs Wallace (1970). [* END OF SECTION **] I think that the "or otherwise" clause would probably include a threat uttered over the internet, since although it is not specificly listed, I would imagine that the court would hold it to be "common to the class enumerated in the section". Maybe this law (or its equivalent in the appropriate jurisdiction) are applicable to cyberspace, and maybe not. Anyone interested in finding out? Maybe this is making a mountain out of a molehill, but if one or two of these death threateners gets a visit from the local constabulary, it might stop this type of antisocial activity right away. Regards, John Sladek