I was thinking about the popularity of issuing death threats online, and what remedies there might be.
Making death threats is illegal, but even where the threatening person’s real identity is known, law enforcement and prosecutor’s offices seem to rarely take action (see how long it was before anyone took action against Dennis Markuze.)
If there’s no criminal proceedings against someone issuing online death threats, is there civil relief possible? Can you file a lawsuit against someone for criminal actions that the state is uninterested in prosecuting?
At the risk of mixing IMHO with GQ, could any legal experts give an opinion or past examples of how such a case might go?
Don’t worry, don’t need answer fast. And this isn’t for a “friend”
IAALawyer but not your lawyer and not in your jurisdiction anyway:
Short answer: Yes.
Whether the State wants to prosecute criminally has no bearing on a civil suit.
Civil relief is possible but in the absence of some specific tort provision, the problem would be proving damages.
There is definitely a fault (and in jurisdictions that require it, likely a duty of care), but if there aren’t damages and a causal link between the fault and the damages, there generally isn’t a tort.
Now, if someone goes into a depression as a result, that may quite well count as damages and a causal link.
If someone is particularly alarmed by the death threat and that causes them considerably anxiety, there too.
There may be jurisdictions that use the law & economics perspective and would award exemplary damages as a way to cut down on that social problem. In the US, exemplary damages are common enough.
Getting someone who made a death threat online to pay up hundreds of thousands as a way to deter others from doing the same would likely break new legal ground. It would be an interesting case whose outcome would not be assured.
exemplary/punitive damages:
I think an interesting side issue would be how difficult it would be for Joe Victim to locate the real live person behind e.g. 4chan username “ImGonnaKEEEELYouJoe!!1!”.
I think it’s real uncertain that Joe has any mechanism to force ISPs and other logging entities to reveal relevant info they may have. Not to mention the challenge of proving to the relevant standard of proof that all the evidence really fingers that particular live person.
Often the trail doesn’t even go that far. Generally it’s social networks and web hosts who first receive requests for info. If there’s a subpoena or court order from the right jurisdiction they’ll comply. Typically they don’t have anything useful - a throwaway email address, an IP address that points to an offshore proxy.
