It's not blackmail in the first place. There were no secrets to reveal since everything was published online, and it's legal to sue and report a possible crime. Speculating about the consequences doesn't make it blackmail.
The vast majority of neurotypical English-speaking adults would have no difficulty categorising it as a veiled threat. Note the strong consensus in this comments section.
The message has two parts - the response that X wants from Y, and the possible negative consequences for Y. The proximity of the two parts makes the implied link clear (to most people, anyway).
I assure you that 99% of judges and prosecutors would recognise this as blackmail (modulo variance in different countries' legal definitions of the crime).
Comments
I think the fact that Daniel backpedaled and said his blackmail comment wasn't meant as blackmail doesn't really change anything.
It's not blackmail in the first place. There were no secrets to reveal since everything was published online, and it's legal to sue and report a possible crime. Speculating about the consequences doesn't make it blackmail.
The vast majority of neurotypical English-speaking adults would have no difficulty categorising it as a veiled threat. Note the strong consensus in this comments section.
The message has two parts - the response that X wants from Y, and the possible negative consequences for Y. The proximity of the two parts makes the implied link clear (to most people, anyway).
I assure you that 99% of judges and prosecutors would recognise this as blackmail (modulo variance in different countries' legal definitions of the crime).