Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 April 12

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 12

A law against threats

If I were to pull out some petrol and matches in a hotel lobby, and threaten to make a fire that could easily destroy the place down and kill everyone, would I be breaking the law, and if so, which law?

If there is such a law, does it apply to world leaders who threaten destroy Earth and kill 7.6 billion people?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

For the former - yes. here for examples. For the latter - what world leaders are threatening to destroy the Earth? Iapetus (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Political leaders usually threaten other countries and not their own. I have not heard of a country which disallows politicians to do this. If they travel to a country they have threatened or one of its allies, I assume they will make sure that they have diplomatic immunity or a similar agreement. If they threaten to do something that could cause retaliation at their own country then they are not actually threatening their own country in a legal sense. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Assault is defined as "a threat of imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person". If you tell someone "I am going to hit you" or if you make a motion that shows intent to hit someone, that is assault. Also, like Iapetus, I have never heard a World Leader state "I will now kill 7.6 billion people", or anything like that. --Jayron32 15:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You might find true threat and/or imminent lawless action useful. Generally, to be criminal, a threat would need to appear credible to a reasonable observer. For example, hyperbolic statements made in jest would not generally be perceived as credible and hence would not be criminally actionable. In addition, the threat generally needs to create a fear of illegal action. If a bank threatens to repossess your house for non-payment on your mortgage, then I am sure that is frightening but it isn't criminal since the bank would be acting entirely within their rights. A politician might engage in threatening rhetoric, but it would be very unusual for one to actually make a credible threat of illegal action. Dragons flight (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a law. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter reads "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force . . ." see also Use of force by states. Ronald Reagan's We begin bombing in five minutes seems to be the sort of thing the OP has in mind.John Z (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Reagan's comment was a joke, even if not everyone found it funny. My guess is that Anna was talking about Trump's tweet on Syria, which was not a joke, though that's not the same as saying it was a genuine statement of intent. --Trovatore (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. I think I understand now. It is a lot about being imminent rather than just making the population of the world feel quite uncomfortable. Maybe it is like standing in a hotel lobby with a can of petrol and a lighter, looking nuts, and yelling "I might!" really loud. Not illegal, but not nice either.

And to Iapetus, there is only one country I know of that could blow us all up and that has indicated it may bring things down that path.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Even the scenario you're describing would qualify as "imminent" danger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A threat has to be imminent and plausible to count as Assault. But non-imminent threats can also be illegal. See for example Intimidation, Death threat, Coercion, Extortion, Blackmail. Iapetus (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)