×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ex-Marine Detained For Facebook Posts Deemed "Terrorist in Nature"

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the rumsfeld-aspic-jsofc3ip-Verisign-terrorism-Comirex dept.

Censorship 593

colinneagle writes with news of a marine turned conspiracy theorist who was detained for psychological evaluation after posting rants on Facebook. He has since been ordered to remain in a mental facility for at least 30 days. From the article: "There are conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job. I don't really follow that news, but can people be arrested after saying so online, exercising their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech? On August 16, the FBI, Secret Service and the Chesterfield Police arrested a decorated former U.S. Marine for 'airing his critical views of the U.S. government on Facebook.' On Facebook, Raub talked about the Illuminati, a shadow organization in which 'some of the leaders were involved with the bombing of the twin towers' and the 'great amount of evil perpetrated by the American Government.' He said people may think he was going crazy, but a 'civil war,' the 'Revolution' is coming. 'I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting.' On July 24, he said he was at a 'great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle.' On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'" I suspect being a former marine and threatening to decapitate military officials might have had something to do with this (communicating specific threats?). But then again, his Facebook page was reportedly private, and according to the AP newswire: "The big concern, Whitehead said, is whether government officials are monitoring citizens' private Facebook pages and detaining people with whom they disagree."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

593 comments

Seems like the truthers are trying to make a story (1, Troll)

daveschroeder (516195) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062431)

The answer:

Dee Rybiski, an FBI spokeswoman in Richmond, said there was no Facebook snooping by her agency.

"We received quite a few complaints about what were perceived as threatening posts," she said. "Given the circumstances with the things that have gone on in the country with some of these mass shootings, it would be horrible for law enforcement not to pay attention to complaints."

Whitehead said some of the posts in question were made on a closed Facebook page that Raub had recently created so he questioned whether anyone from the public would have complained about them.

Really?

So the fact aside for a moment that it's not possible for a Facebook Page to be closed (was it his page, or more likely a Closed Group?), it's not possible for any one of his friends and/or group members to have complained?

Really?

Whitehead said he found nothing alarming in Raub's social media commentaries. "The posts I read that supposedly were of concern were libertarian-type posts I see all the time," he said.

Indeed. Then all of those people should be hauled away then, too, right?

But there will likely be plenty of people here who choose to believe the government is routinely and without warrants monitoring private communications on social media -- it will be the same folks who believe that the government is illegally dragnet-wiretapping all Americans while ignoring legitimate foreign intelligence interests.

Re:Seems like the truthers are trying to make a st (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062637)

You're the one who said Facebook Page with a capital p, the quote didn't. The original sentence could refer to anywhere on Facebook's site. Now if the government was doing anything illegal, you wouldn't expect them to be blatant about it would you? They'd of course have some sort of excuse, some sort of explanation as to where the lead came from. We already know Facebook monitors all "private" communication, they've admitted as much when identifying a guy trying to groom girls. Of course that probably means a ton of other conversations gets flagged and looked at, without you ever knowing. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Facebook also has an agreement to look for possible terrorists, drug deals and whatever else the government might have an interest in knowing. Nothing you say there should be treated as private, ever.

Cue the 1st amendment nuts (-1, Flamebait)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062437)

Here it comes. "B .. b ... but anyone should be free to say anything any time" in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1...

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (1, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062467)

Indeed. Your lords and masters prefer it when you don't talk about anything freedom related; you're all slaves, you will never be free, why can't you accept that?

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (4, Insightful)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062571)

Indeed. Your lords and masters prefer it when you don't talk about anything freedom related; you're all slaves, you will never be free, why can't you accept that?

So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?

So we stop a professionally trained killer in his tracks after indicating that he might be a mentally imbalanced homicidal maniac, and that makes us "slaves"?

I think people like you need to learn the definition of words like "slave" that you throw around so easily.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062643)

I want to shoot myself in the head

i want to stand in front of a train

i want to get drunk and set myself on fire

i want to walk into a bank with a fake gun and get shoot by cops

i want to drive the wrong way on the road and crash into a police cruiser at 120 kph

i want to fall off a cliff

i want to get stabbed in the chest

i want to get eaten alive my wild cougars

i want to jump off a bridge

i want to stick a grenade in my mouth and pull the pin

i want to inject to many heroin and get overdosed

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062831)

I want to shoot myself in the head

i want to stand in front of a train

i want to get drunk and set myself on fire

i want to walk into a bank with a fake gun and get shoot by cops

i want to drive the wrong way on the road and crash into a police cruiser at 120 kph

i want to fall off a cliff

i want to get stabbed in the chest

i want to get eaten alive my wild cougars

i want to jump off a bridge

i want to stick a grenade in my mouth and pull the pin

i want to inject to many heroin and get overdosed

Hmmm ...

Sounds like dim sum for a dumb ass.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41063011)

The main difference between the words you wrote and the posts discussed in the article is that you aren't threatening anyone else.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062673)

Don't gangsta rappers talk like this all the time in their lyrics? It's metaphorical. Hopefully the marine was speaking metaphorically, but I guess you have to play on the safe side. Flip side: police ignore warning signs preceding armed rampage. Can't say I disagree although spying on people is creepy.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (2, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062783)

So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?

"Off with their heads!" - the Red Queen, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, Lewis Carroll

That's from 1865. Doesn't sound very freedom related to me, so the whole "freedom" thing must be new. OTOH, C L Dodgson didn't get thrown in jail for what he wrote.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062891)

He wrote a book about a fictional character threatening to decapitate a fictional character. The article is about a Marine (someone TRAINED to kill) threatening actual government employees with a specific weapon. Now "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads" could be taken as a simple saying (akin to "heads will role"), but when it's coming a ex Marine who not only has the ability and training to do it, but has posted other comments showing a possible mental imbalance, people start to get a little more worried than when a playing card threatens a book character.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year and a half ago | (#41063043)

So do you think he was actually planning to get an axe and chop off their heads? That would be kind of unusual, don't you think?

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (3, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062909)

Indeed. Your lords and masters prefer it when you don't talk about anything freedom related; you're all slaves, you will never be free, why can't you accept that?

So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?

As long as it's just fantasizing it is talk only .

Have any other actions to confirm a crime? Then arrest and charge for the crime (ah, right, I forgot: linking to locations on internet may be a crime in US, not need for a real-life action against somebody).
Have other signs of mental imbalance? Then see how you can offer medical treatment (oh, right, I forgot... universal medical care in US is seen as the most evil thing there can be...God forbids that even veterans, who lost their health for their country, are to benefit of medical care free of charge).

Rate me flamebait, but here's my sincere opinion: this is coming from the dystopian saga of the "Weird Planet America"... beat me if I can rationally understand it
(or am I batshit crazy? Will one come to arrest me for it?)

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (1, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year and a half ago | (#41063071)

Have any other actions to confirm a crime?

Who cares about that!? He could, theoretically, kill someone. Actually, anyone could. And as everyone knows, a few deaths are far worse than violating everyone's freedom. Therefore, we must toss everyone in prison.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (2)

stephanruby (542433) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062987)

I think people like you need to learn the definition of words like "slave" that you throw around so easily.

There is actually a silver lining to this story.

Threatening to chop off the heads of generals on a private Facebook page seems to be much more effective at getting yourself mental health services than telling everyone who would listen that you're just going to kill yourself [rense.com].

"'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"

It seems to me like he was wildly optimistic in his paranoia. Most paranoids would have just said: "The government is coming for me. Men will be a my door soon to pick me up to take me away. "

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#41063023)

So are you saying that it's ok to punish people for toughcrime? The guy hasn't done anything wrong.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41063069)

So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?

Maybe or maybe not, but quoting fucking lyrics of a fucking song [azlyrics.com] is very much freedom related.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062999)

Yep, that is why people never talk about freedom issues on places like Slashdot. You'll never see dozen post arguements break out here about freedom related issues and other government short comings. They would be arrested before they had the chance to make a follow up post. In fact, I am not sure why I am replying to you, as your door probably has already been broken down by the secret police.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062487)

Here it comes. "B .. b ... but anyone should be free to say anything any time" in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1...

You should at least be able to say "niggers". Or whatever is considered equally offensive at that time. It's the sign of a truly free country.

Popular speech doesn't need protection.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062705)

This is popular speech.

"Niggers" is popular speech, white people say it all the time, it's not illegal.

Tea Party death threats are popular speech and are considered normal and rarely questioned

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062779)

"Tea Party death treats are popular speech and are considered normal and rarely questioned"
++ to you!!

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (4, Funny)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#41063007)

You can run around saying "nigger" all you want and the cops legally can't do anything about it. However, that doesn't mean that a little "social pressure" won't be applied if you say it in front of the wrong people.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062503)

If he was really going to commit a crime, wouldn't it be better to let him say it, then be able to catch him in the act, having a clearer and less ambiguous case, with a longer, actual sentence [not some 30 day psych ward stint that won't stop anybody]?

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062573)

Absolutely, getting him a long sentence would be worth a few murdered generals.

You. fucking. retard.

Maybe if we paid this kind of attention to all the nutjobs, we could sort the harmless ones from the ones who shoot up a place.

pattern in mass shootings (2)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062819)

With many mass shootings, it turns out people knew the perpetrator had mental issues, but nothing was done about it. Now that somebody is doing something about it, that's not right either. shaking my head

Re:pattern in mass shootings (2)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062935)

I'd take that with a grain of salt. Hindsight is always 20/20, especially when it comes to mental issues. People always look back and say "well, he was a very strange", even if they never would have suspected a thing before the incident.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062823)

Absolutely, getting him a long sentence would be worth a few murdered generals.

Hey, I think so.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (1)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#41063015)

Absolutely, getting him a long sentence would be worth a few murdered generals.

Nah, generals just do the dirty work the politicians tell them to.

The politicians themselves, OTOH... Yeah, a few less of them wasting our oxygen, and one unbalanced whack-job in prison - I'd call that a net positive all around!

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062631)

I know everyone thinks that this is a punitive move, but at least on the face of it, the psych detention is for diagnostic purposes. We put people in this situation routinely when they are 1) an danger to themselves or others (likely the rationale here) or 2) gravely disabled (think sitting in the middle of the freeway).

From the limited info presented, it may well be the most reasonable thing to do. Perhaps he's just blowing off steam. Perhaps he is having a bad day.

Or perhaps he has a couple of fully auto M-16s, a couple thousand rounds of ammo, a couple of grenades and maybe some other souvenirs of the Middle East. It's a difficult balance between letting people do what they feel is right and allowing mass murder, even if it's justified to some people's minds.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (5, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062679)

And if they had done nothing and we had a few dead generals, I predict people would have shouted "how come no one saw the signs and intervened?"

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062697)

Yes. That happens with every bad thing, and always will, no matter how much is done or changed. "WHY DIDN'T THE TSA CHECK OUR SHOES?!?"

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062983)

If he takes out a few congresspeople, a couple of senators, and maybe a president, and a few thousand lawyers, I don't think they'd be missed at all. He is right. A revolution is coming. Our government grows more corrupt every year. When people get fed up that we live in a country run by money that only caters to major corporations at the expense of everyone else, it'll happen. It may or may not be violent and bloody. But the people at the top will most certainly meet a horrendous fall. They are correct to be scared. History has demonstrated this over and over again: no matter how good the intentions a governing body when it is first constructed, eventually absolute corruption occurs, and at that point it needs to be burned away to keep the body alive, much like you would cauterize a severe wound. And then, a newly formed, and temporarily corruption-free head will grow to take its place, until the people get complacent and lazy and look the other way. And then a few hundred years later, the story will repeat itself (up to a few thousand if the cancer is allowed to mature and turn into a brutal dictatorship).

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062683)

There's clearly a blurry line here trying to distinguish crazed ranting from actual threats. I'm definitely opposed to the idea of "thoughtcrime", but if someone is making real threats that they're in a position to carry out (and I'm guessing an ex-Marine is more qualified than most to do so) it makes sense to step in before real harm is done. But that's also contingent on us being able to actually make a realistic distinction between blowing off steam and actually planning violence. We tend to be overcautious here, but that's societal trends at work.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062611)

You're obviously trolling, but I'll bite

If you don't like the 1st amendment, then call a convention and repeal the goddamn thing. But do it legally. But while it remains on the books, you are obligated to enforce it exactly as written without exception. And nowhere in the constitution are there any exceptions.

Now, do the police have a right to investigate? Absolutely. Do they have any right to detain the man? Absolutely not. Unless they find something during a legal investigation. If that sounds like nuttery to you, then I would say your the nut.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (3, Informative)

KhabaLox (1906148) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062941)

p>

Now, do the police have a right to investigate? Absolutely. Do they have any right to detain the man? Absolutely not.

Actually, detention of suspects at the onset, during and after an investigation is common and not unconstitutional within limits. From TFS, this sounds like a pretty routine psych detention. I've had a friend detained on at least 2 occasions for psych evaluations, though in fairness he was committing trespassing crimes both times.

Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (1)

CaptainLugnuts (2594663) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062887)

Here it comes. "B .. b ... but anyone should be free to say anything any time" in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1...

You are. You are also responsible for the repercussions.

Nothing on Facebook is private (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062439)

He should know that.

Re:Nothing on Facebook is private (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062547)

Specifically, anyone with access to view a facebook page can 'report' it, and Facebook employees have training about which content is against the AUP or plainly illegal, and what needs to be forwarded there. If you report a clear terrorist threat on someone's private page that you have access to, clearly you would expect the staff to forward it to the FBI. This guy may have been a bit nutty, but someone still hit the report button, and I guess they acted on it. Can't say I disagree with the system in this case.

Re:Nothing on Facebook is private (1)

mhh91 (1784516) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062599)

Nothing on the internet truly is.

Re:Nothing on Facebook is private (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062769)

Real men use 8128bit end-2-end encryption whilst hiding behind 7 proxies!

Re:Nothing on Facebook is private (3, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062817)

The funny thing is I've heard worse conspiracy "war is coming" crap in my Sunday school class. I guess that's product of established organized religion so it's perfectly acceptable. Funny how that works.

Re:Nothing on Facebook is private (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062857)

Everyone should know that. I believe it's clear at this point that Facebook sells wholesale access to everything they have (including all the "deleted" stuff). I bet they have a price list that includes wholesale direct access to everything in their datebase and they sell this access for a pretty penny to governments and market research companies.

Nothing on Facebook is private, it's even in their TOS that you grant them rights to use anything you give them anyway they want.

Re:Nothing on Facebook is private (2)

bigjocker (113512) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062911)

That's beside the point. Here you have a trained killer threatening to severe heads with an axe. I don't know if it's a crime per se, but it's something the government would be held liable if they don't investigate. The truth is that there are a lot of nutjobs, but when you have trained person threatening to use such training to attack the government it would be irresponsible not to act.

Facebook is forced by law to monitor and report on such activities. This is non news.

Re:Nothing on Facebook is private (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about a year and a half ago | (#41063039)

He should know that.

Not everyone is a paranoid conspiracy theorist tin-foil hat wearing technophobe.

USA wants to beat Russia? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062441)

Is this going to be another cold war where instead of stacking up nukes both sides gonna try to show them from their most dictatorial side?

I must say both sides are off to a very good start, if so.

you can't yell fire in a movie theater (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062449)

and you can't threaten people and say a lot of other things

free speech is about speaking normal grievances against the government and using the political process to change them

stop bringing up the bullshit argument! (0, Redundant)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062527)

Yes, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theatre. It is perfectly legal. Look it up - there's a whole wikipedia page about it.

Furthermore, it is my reasoned opinion that it's fine, regardless of what the law may be: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/2006/04/14/294/ [wordpress.com]

Re:stop bringing up the bullshit argument! (5, Interesting)

cryptizard (2629853) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062719)

Reading comprehension my good man, try it some time. The 1969 case overturned the original case, but not all implications of it. Speech is still illegal if it passes the "Brandenburg test" which is if the speaker intends to cause imminent lawlessness. That is precisely the case when yelling fire in a theater, and the Wikipedia article even says this about the concurring opinion (written by justice Douglas): "Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech."

Re:stop bringing up the bullshit argument! (2)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062775)

Fine, you can't call in a false bomb threat then. Plenty of present-day examples for that.

You probably can't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater either. I don't believe it's been tested. The decision in which the phrase originated was later overturned, but that not because shouting fire in a theater is okay.

The original decision said that protesting the draft was akin to shouting fire in a theater, since it would cause harm to the nation. The glaringly obvious flaw in that reasoning is the question of who decides that protesting the draft is harmful? But when it comes to inciting a stampede in a crowded place, it is obviously harmful.

Re:stop bringing up the bullshit argument! (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062815)

If you stampede despite all the mandatory fire drill lessons in publi education, YOU are assaulting someone. Your own panic should not be a valid legal excuse, nor a reason to pass the responsibility onto the "prankster". A lot of false bomb threats are phoned in - are people injuring themselves in a trample? No, because they are acting reasonable. That is an individual's responsibility, and you don't get to morally write it off "because someone told me something that made me lose all reason".

Re:stop bringing up the bullshit argument! (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062905)

Who ever said that the rampaging murderers should be let off the hook? No reason we can't spread the blame around when a person ends up dead because of malice or negligence. The point is that the original inciter either intended for people to get hurt or was woefully negligent in not realizing that people likely would be hurt in such a situation. Textbook murder/manslaughter.

Re:stop bringing up the bullshit argument! (3, Informative)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062853)

And he did say those things. No one physically prevented his free speech. He's being held after the fact for psychological evaluation. On the other hand they could have held him on criminal charges as most states have laws against credible threats of violence.

The courts do not have a lot of historical precedent for freedom of speech clause of the US constitution until after WWI. Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes has the quote most relevant to this situation: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." I think this legal basis is still mostly current, so law enforcement would need to only prove a "clear and present danger" even if the person is deemed to be sane.

There's also the issue of what if the person is insane. I don't know the legal history here but certainly there has been a long history of of forced hospital commitments and evaluations for those who are judged to be insane, as they are said to be a danger to themselves and others, and very often the only evidence of mental illness is what the patient says. Is this a free speech issue or not?

Re:you can't yell fire in a movie theater (0)

bug1 (96678) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062723)

Actually you can threaten people, threats are a daily occurrence in most societies, police do it all the time, they have the authority to do it.
You can even threaten to do something illegal (not having the authority), their might be legal consequences from saying it, but that doesnt stop you from saying it.

In this case, the person doesnt seem to be "of sound mind", and people in such circumstances really shouldn't be entitled to the same rights others have.

Re:you can't yell fire in a movie theater (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062883)

Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty sure that in the US, if you threaten somebody and they have reason to believe that there is imminent danger of you carrying that threat out, that is legally assault and you can certainly be charged and taken to jail. Elsewhere YMMV.

Re:you can't yell fire in a movie theater (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062741)

Fuck you. ~~~~ also protected speech

Re:you can't yell fire in a movie theater (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062827)

free speech is about speaking normal grievances against the government and using the political process to change them

You're making shit up. Show me where in the constitution it says that.

Re:you can't yell fire in a movie theater (2)

tomhath (637240) | about a year and a half ago | (#41063093)

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. /quote

Re:you can't yell fire in a movie theater (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062943)

False analogy. The owner of the theatre has the right to limit your speech. Free speech only protects you (theoretically) against governmental repercussions.

Re:you can't yell fire in a movie theater (3, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#41063073)

and you can't threaten people and say a lot of other things

You reckon? Maybe this [wikipedia.org] is coming from a time the US justice was still fully sane, but...

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
...
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)...
...
As of 2011, the Brandenburg test is still the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969.

Or did lately any post on FB become a concrete action?

its all about context (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062453)

suppose it was a rich CEO posting something about making 'disruptive technology' and how he's going to start a war with him competitors. "heads will roll!" the ceo, exclaims.

and if that happened, he'd probably be offered a VP position in a government-level job.

aggression in business: to be rewarded

else, they may just come for you...

Re:its all about context (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062649)

Businessmen are always trying to make military analogies. Makes them feel macho and in charge, I suppose. There is, however, a clear difference between some coke addled suit and an ex-marine with a bunch of weapons.

Re:its all about context (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#41063045)

Hell, me and my business owning buddies do this all the time. It's just posturing and pumping ourselves up. Nobody would rationally believe that I'm going to "drive $COMPETITOR before me whilst hearing the lamentations of their women". The things this guy was saying on Facebook is in no way comparable.

Re:its all about context (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062661)

Look up the word "metaphorical" some day, please.

Re:its all about context (2, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062691)

To be fair, "heads will roll" in the context of "We're going to fire the people responsible" and "heads will roll" in the context of "... off the end of this battleax I'm sharpening as it turns red with their blood" are two completely different kinds of posts. The former isn't so bad (bad for the people losing their jobs, but not grossly illegal in and of itself). The latter is scary and bears looking into. If the person turns out to not only have the know how (ex-marine) but also the mindset (conspiracy theorist far down the rabbit hole) to carry out his statements, then his statements should be taken as serious threats of violence.

Re:its all about context (1)

enjerth (892959) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062841)

Did they find a battle axe in his possession? If not, it was probably metaphorical.

Oh please (1)

JOrgePeixoto (853808) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062717)

suppose it was a rich CEO posting something about making 'disruptive technology' and how he's going to start a war with him competitors. "heads will roll!" the ceo, exclaims.

and if that happened, he'd probably be offered a VP position in a government-level job.

aggression in business: to be rewarded

else, they may just come for you...

That is loony cynicism. In your hypothetic example, "heads will roll" does not mean violence.

Unless you are gunnying for +3 Funny and I didn't get it.

No. This isn't censorship. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062457)

This is a mentally unstable trained killer making death threats. Next.

Re:No. This isn't censorship. (0)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062927)

This. The threats were credible and that is enough to get you arrested for assault in the US. If you make some stupid offhand comment you have little to worry but all signs point to this guy teetering on the edge. I'm just glad he gave a warning and can now get the help he needs.

State abuse of power? (1)

BlearyTruth (2692231) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062477)

Is that the case? Really?

The same state everyone here seems to want to control their access to colonoscpies?

Congratulations (4, Insightful)

darkharlequin (1923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062489)

You have now just validated what this paranoid individual has been saying to his mentally unstable friends. Good job!

Horrible conclusion (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062529)

I'm extremely pro-privacy but even this is ridiculous. I don't care who you are or who your friends might be - if one of them starts talking some crazy conspiracy, murderous shit and he's an ex-marine (and probably either has or has access to several weapons), please please please seriously call the police about it.

Crazy Talk (1, Funny)

mark_elf (2009518) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062551)

"Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads."

Don't want an extended psych evaluation? Don't threaten people on the internet.

Re:Crazy Talk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062589)

Everyone knows Hugo Stiglitz

Big question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062653)

Are they monitoring? Of course they are. Don't be naive.

detaining people with whom they disagree? Hah! (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062695)

How many thousands and thousands fulminated and vituperated in the most horrible manner against Bush?

How many were thrown in jail?

Monitoring citizens? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062733)

No one was being monitored. This guy, an Ex-Marine, probably had some Not-Yet-Ex-Marines as friends. His rants got noticed by one of them, and after some forwarding around of the "look how insane this guy is! lol!" type posts, it ended up with some busybody who saw the specific threats, and decided to file a report.

My theory seems much more likely. Before starting a debate about Orwellian surveillance, why don't we get some facts?

A couple things... (5, Informative)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062751)

This link was presented on a message board I frequent: Update: Former Marine Arrested by FBI for Facebook Posts!! [ronpaultribune.com]

The "threatening to decapitate military officials" in the summary seems, as far as I can tell, to be a conflation of two separate Facebook posts he made: 1) "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads" (which are apparently lyrics from a song) and 2) "This is part where I tell the Federal Government to go fuck itself. This is the part where I tell Generals, training our young med to fight Americans, I am coming for you. The Veterans will be with me."

The latter is probably what caught the government's attention.

As to "his Facebook page was reportedly private", also from the summary, a number of his posts were shared by people on his Friends list. If it's true that his page was private, it's very likely that the word got out through this sharing.

psikhushka (punitive psychiatry) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062757)

Virginia has a psychiatric detention law. I can't wait for the "sluggisly progressing schizophrenia" diagnoses to parade like the Looney Tunes® characters on the stage with the brass ensemble.

Private Facebook page (1)

quantaman (517394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062801)

Whether the Facebook page is private or not is irrelevant, his friends reported him to the authorities and easily could have shown them the Facebook page.

I'm not sure I see anything in this story that makes me worry about civil liberties, it's just an unusual news story.

Facebook Policy States (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062809)

that any threats such as this discharged marine made will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities. That's right, the Government doesn't have to spy or even pay for the information as Facebook gives the heads up to the government anytime this happens. Simply put, if you want to rant in private, then god damn well do it in private and not on the fucking internets.

Re:Facebook Policy States (2)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062955)

Nope, Government doesn't have to pay; they search and scour on their own:
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors1.png [eccentrici...gency.info]
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors2.png [eccentrici...gency.info] | This visitor showed up right before my youtube account was terminated with no prior warning or violations. Just terminated, period. Then they nixed my gmail account shortly after.
That's a small sample of the visitors I've had at my own website. Some are bots (AI), and some are not. But they are very busy, no doubt.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062873)

This will work its way through the courts with a view by the government(s) to roll back the "immanent lawless violence" standard for free speech.

One of his buddies probably told. (2)

tibman (623933) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062965)

Not as big a deal as you'd think. Even years after being out of the US Army, i get phone calls asking about my mental well-being. They seem to take good care of their own, as if the government still feels possessive or responsible for an in-active veteran. It's terrible if a civilian goes batshit insane and kills people. If a Marine goes batshit insane it becomes an event that books are written about.

Facebook and "private" -- not necessarily. (2)

grnbrg (140964) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062971)

Facebook *does* monitor "private" communications (probably with automated keyword searching and the like) and will proactively contact law enforcement if it's deemed appropriate... The following story broke locally about a week ago -- http://www.cjob.com/news/winnipeg/story.aspx?ID=1757654 [cjob.com] (tl;dr - Local PD got a call from FB about the sexual assault of a 13 year old by a 25 yo.)

It is entirely possible that something similar happened here, no matter how private his postings were.

Terrorist? (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062975)

~/terrorist/fucked up|scary/gi

Home of the brave... It's time to give back your land to the actual Braves you took them from, or change the damn anthem: "Land of the Paranoid, and the Home of the Terrified"

The word "Marine" should be capitalized. (2)

DaTrueDave (992134) | about a year and a half ago | (#41062979)

When referring to a member of a Marine Corps (US, British Royal, Republic of Korea), the word "Marine" is always capitalized.

A few points to make. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41062993)

Was he mentally unstable? Yes, he sounded very mentally unstable.

Was this a violation of civil rights? No, it doesn't sound like it, he verbally made threats to his superiors and demonstrated a mental instability. If they actually violated his civil rights, my main question would be, Why? He has already give you everything you needed to lock him away when he told his superiors he was coming for their heads.

Now, was he correct? Unfortunately, being a nut job doesn't mean he isn't correct....... At its current rate of decline, within the next couple decades, America only has 2 options left at this point, Civil War or total economic collapse. Sorry, but I don't consider reform a viable option at this point as the entrenched interests has co-opted the system to the point they will not allow it as it runs contrary to what they want and the thought of this nation going down the tubes is of no consequence to them as they will have jumped ship with their ill-gotten gains and with history not even fingering them as the ones behind the collapse as they were nothing more than "campaign contributors" or friends of a friend while the shear level of their influence personally will not be known to the history books.

Sorry, but if this nation dies, the Rockefeller's, the Bushes, and the owners of companies such as Goldman Sachs will not care one iota except what they are forced to care in the public light. They are the ones who own this country currently, they are the ones who own your representatives and they don't care about the nation or it's people, they only care about themselves and what they have to do to maintain their inherited power and wealth.

Re:A few points to make. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41063081)

Real Men aren'nt US marine's, US Rangers, or Delta Force, come a bit east 3000km for some Real Men

Beware of what you post (1)

Shempster (2523982) | about a year and a half ago | (#41063005)

Numbnuts using phrases like: "I have nothing to hide, so I'm fine with this...", or "If you don't like it, don't use the Internet..." should be very careful what they type from now on. Deygoingetcha. On the one hand, law enforcement focus their scopes on terrorists and gangs. At the same time, rotten elements within law enforcement can focus their scopes on things they happen to hate. This is all happening now. Not in some abstract future. Microsoft, Apple, RIM, Nokia have histories working with the NSA & equivs installing backdoors in their OSes. And FB is a pathetic joke when it comes to privacy issues. Might as well assume zero privacy when it comes to social apps, webcams, and smartphone cameras.

Catch-22... (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about a year and a half ago | (#41063017)

Whenever someone goes on a killing rampage, people always dig up all this stuff and say, "Why didn't we stop this?"

Whenever they act on this stuff to prevent it, people always say, "But he never did anything, just talked about it!"

Somedays, you just can't win...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...