It would be a small piece of justice but wouldn't rectify the courts mishandling.
I would disagree. With no connection to either the perpetrator, victim, judiciary or legislature, and having (I assume) not legal training, answering one crime - of which you don't have all the details - with another (potential*) crime, is not justice. Now, I'm not saying it's not understandable to want to do that, but enough honesty and self awareness needs to exist that somebody deciding to take justice into their own hands cannot be expecting to do so within the protection of law*.
*The question here, which is what Danoff seems to be getting at - is take away the fact you want to rage against a criminal, is it actually wrong to say that kind of stuff to anybody.
Which I would do too. That seems to be what many Germans have done.
Okay, so.. do you? I mean, there's sentencing decisions in this country that many would consider to be wrong or inappropriate, have you taken to the streets in complaint, or even written to your MP?
Which seems to have the best, would you say?
I honestly can't. In the context of Danoff's statement regarding how it might affect his decision to live somewhere, it wouldn't factor in to my preference between the three. Day to day Policing would be more of a factor, but even then it's likely the overall crime rate I'd probably take into account.
Agreed. Although I don't think this actually rises to the level of an actionable threat.
Probably not, I agree, but at the same time, it's not an off-hand remark either, the intent is clearly malicious. The 4 qualifiers you posted for True Threat seem to make sense, but it's still about picking a point prior to actual action to penalise somebody.
I wonder if you're commenting on German law criminalizing protest, or if it's UK law. I'd be interested to hear more if you care to elaborate.
In terms of protest, English law. It's a different scenario to your concerns around defamation in Germany.
Personally I'm a strong believer in protest primarily as a function of our democracy, it is vital given representation in our democracy is poor, laws are co-written by un-elected people in roles they literally inherit, and signed into law by a completely unelected head of state (the King). If you think about that scenario in the context of your signature, it is a vital tool for those that may have their rights voted away by people who have never been elected to represent us.
With that background, consider that the government passed a law that amongst many other things criminalises
one person protesting (or even just incitement to) if the senior police officer on the scene decides it might disrupt an organisation in the vicinity of the protest. Or indeed, any protest that causes "serious annoyance".
So, going back to
@HenrySwanson wanting to serve justice by texting potentially actionable threats to a sex offender and then finding out that potentially this might be an offence itself, imagine my suggestion of peaceful protest that could potentially effect change in future, rather than pointless but cathartic vigilantism, being met with (up to) a 12 month prison sentence, because somebody was disrupted or annoyed by it.