One of the typical platforms of the virtual world is social networks according to manbir sodhi law brampton. Although the specific definition of the social network does not need to be specifically mentioned, we will note that it is a “social structure made up of individuals (or organizations) that are linked to one or more specific types of interdependence such as values, visions, ideas, financial interests, friendship, kinship, common interest, financial exchange, sympathies, sexual relations, or relationships of trust, knowledge or prestige. ”
The essence of the social network is to connect people, who through it (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) communicate with each other. If this communication among people is decent, pleasant and friendly, it will remain outside the reach of the competent authorities. However, in addition to normal communication, some structures can also express feelings that in many ways harass other structures on the social network. The expression of individual feelings can greatly overcome the rules of good behavior, and it can cause damage to feelings such as shame, fear, anger, anxiety, and so on.
Unfortunately, social networks are involved and included in many individual crimes, which represent gross violations of someone’s rights committed on social networks. These are the situations in which citizens can experience every day, often without clear awareness of what they are doing, or without the awareness that their behavior is qualified as a criminal offense, but with a clear intention of offending someone, challenging someone to revenge, or to something even worse. There are so many possibilities of these crimes, but there is also treatment of the state against the perpetrators of these crimes.
One of the crimes that often happens through social networks is to jeopardize security. The Criminal Code defines as “a threat to someone to attack the life or body of that person or close to him.” If you threaten somebody through a social network, you will kill him, break him, and so on, you are committing a crime. The threat should cause a sense of vulnerability, i.e., fear of a person who is threatened, and only then is the crime committed. So, in fact, the existence of a criminal offense depends on whether the injured person is threatened, really understood it as a threat, and whether he was scared of it. If someone has sent a “suspended” threat, it is not treated in the legal system as a threat similar to the criminal act being committed against it. A conditional threat implies the construction of a threat related to a future uncertain circumstance. We make a conditional threat in the following example: “If Jake does this or that, I will kill him” and so on.