[jarsin]

Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is not considered the same as a violent threat?

Whats the difference between that homeowner saying "hey i am going to break your kneecaps" vs "hey I have more money than you and am going to destroy your life with legal action." - which is what he was implying in his email

[dragonwriter]

> Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is not considered the same as a violent threat?

Because it isn't a threat of violence. OTOH, it can be an unlawful threat, as, e.g., extortion. [1]

[1] http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2009/hynes101...

[Lawtonfogle]

Every law is backed by violence. A threat of legal action is a threat of violence, even if it is delayed.

So instead of breaking knee caps, it is more like threatening to get a person who may charge them $500 and if they don't pay, then break their knee caps. There is a chance they won't do anything, but it is still a threat of violence.

[jarsin]

Yes this is exactly what i was getting at. If you take the stance that every law is backed by violence essentially.. AND you now say you are going to use the law to get someone to stop doing something that is perfectly legal and OK such as posting a helpful blog on the internet...

Then to me these people are no different from the types of people that threaten to harm you to get you to do what they want.

[Lawtonfogle]

>AND you now say you are going to use the law to get someone to stop doing something that is perfectly legal

Why does it matter if it is legal? Illegal only means that the group in control at the time thinks violence is acceptable to stop the given illegal action.

For some actions there will be mass agreement, such as making murder illegal. For others, there often is far less agreement and maybe even mass disagreement, such as sodomy, which was illegal even into the beginning of the 21st century, or pot.

That the action is legal or not doesn't have much bearing on the underlying issue.

And just to be clear, anarchy isn't a solution because there will always be those wanting to use violence to enforce their will. So banding together and creating a stronger entity that has a monopoly on violence is the best option even if not a good one. Especially when you are a significant enough minority that the group doesn't care about your input or when the monopoly becomes corrupt and no longer follows the will of the group.

It is kinda like a predator out in nature. They have to kill to survive. Either their prey dies or they die. There is no solution where both can live.

[dragonwriter]

No, in general, a threat of legal action might, if you want to take things to extremes, be a threat that, if you don't comply, the actor will attempt to secure an authorization from a third party (the judiciary) that would impose conditions under threat of violence, but it is not, in itself, a threat of violence, even delayed violence.

[Lawtonfogle]

You cannot outright ignore the threat because there is a chance it could escalate. Any example you give, I could give a counter where I use some non-state certified violence (such as the mafia) that escalates in the same fashion, and it would be considered a threat backed by violence.

[skj]

Threatening to sue (or actually suing) is by definition never something that has legal consequences in this country. Law suits are the way of saying "We cannot agree, the state shall decide".

It so happens that money can unfairly influence the state, but that is the problem, not people threatening to sue.

[DanBC]

It depends who's doing the threatening and why.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/barrister-loses-misconduct-...