×

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!

Calif. Man Arrested For ESPN Post On Killing Kids

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the just-a-suggestion-really dept.

Crime 416

SternisheFan writes with an AP story as carried by Yahoo that illustrates one of the boundaries of free speech online: "A California man accused of posting comments on ESPN's website saying he was watching kids and wouldn't mind killing them was in jail Tuesday on $1 million bail after he was arrested for investigation of making terrorist threats, authorities said. Several guns were found Monday at the home of former Yale University student Eric Yee, said Los Angeles County sheriff's Lt. Steve Low. Yee was arrested after the sports network ESPN reported threatening posts were made in a reader response section to an online ESPN story on Thursday about new Nike sneakers named after LeBron James that cost $270 a pair. Some of the nearly 3,000 reader comments on the story talked about children possibly getting killed over the sneakers because of how expensive they are, said ESPN spokesman Mike Soltys. 'What he was posting had nothing to do with sports," Soltys said Tuesday. "We closely monitor the message boards and anytime we get a threat, we're alerting law enforcement officials.' An employee at ESPN headquarters in Bristol, Conn., notified local police the same day and they linked the posting to Yee's home in Santa Clarita in northern Los Angeles County."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

416 comments

Ermahgerd 1984! (5, Insightful)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397773)

Actually, this is what people should be doing: responding to obvious cries for help before the perp manages to shoot up a theater full of people.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (5, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397831)

Actually, this is what people should be doing: responding to obvious cries for help before the perp manages to shoot up a theater full of people.

You're not a perp until you've done something, or at least set in motion clear actions towards doing something.
This is punishing thought crime, justifying actual means by a potential end.

If people are worried about someone's cry for help, call someone who can help, not the law. They have no ways - nor intentions - of helping the person.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397945)

No this is not thought crime, this is punishing a real crime. Making "terrorist threats" has been a crime for a very long time. You can think about crime all you like, telling someone you are going to kill people is a crime. Just not as bad a crime as actually doing it.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (3, Insightful)

metrometro (1092237) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398031)

Yes, but there's a presumption of future crimes that seems problematic. Note the final phrase in this quote from TFA:

"We are thankful that police departments are working together and without the information from Bristol, maybe this wouldn't have been able to be stopped."

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398045)

That is just people being people.
In court he will not be tried for a future crime, but the actual crime he did commit.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (5, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398125)

No this is not thought crime, this is punishing a real crime. Making "terrorist threats" has been a crime for a very long time.

The term credible threat means a threat that is âoe real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.â Kegler v. United States DOJ, 436 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1212 (D. Wyo. 2006)

The standard that has been used up until now is if a perceived threat is distanced in time or target, it's not a credible threat, and subject to free speech protection.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398217)

Which would be an excellent defense. Having a good defense will not prevent you from being arrested, if it is really good though you might avoid even being charged.

The DA will decide if they charge him or not, the police are just doing their jobs.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (4, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398329)

The standard that has been used up until now is if a perceived threat is distanced in time or target

Ah... so he should have said he was going to kill kids next year, one town over.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398129)

Oh please.. It's an expression. It's a distasteful one but if every parent who made an off-color comment about how they'd like to strangle their kids to death went to jail we'd have no parents left.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398287)

If it just an expression then the DA will likely decline to press any charges and this guy will be back on the street in 24 hours or less.

I would suggest you not put your off color comments on billboards though, since that is what posting to a public website basically is.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398131)

Oh come on, this has nothing to do with terrorism. You can drink the Patriot Act kool-aid all you like.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (1, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398183)

Terrorist threats have nothing to do with terrorism. The term has been used for many decades before the Patriot act was even imagined.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398315)

You can think about crime all you like, telling someone you are going to kill people is a crime

But in this specific case, he DIDN'T threaten to do it. Couldn't immediately find a direct quote, but the articles all say he said he "wouldn't mind" doing it.

There are a lot of crimes I wouldn't mind doing. Did I just threaten to do a lot of crimes? No. I won't be doing any crimes today if I can help it. Aside from jaywalking and maybe some copyright crimes. Actually, I'm pretty sure I already did both already, now that I think about it...

Anyway, this is not threatening to kill a specific person to their face to terrify them, which is clearly something that should be illegal. This is saying something tasteless about children, which should not be a crime, and being near an unregistered gun, which depends on the circumstances. And one million dollar bail is quite high even if he had said to a specific kid that he was going to kill them.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (3, Interesting)

DarkTempes (822722) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398319)

And who decides what a "terrorist threat" is? How do we know he wasn't being sarcastic?
A lot of shit gets said on the internet and in real life.

And notice nowhere is the actual quote of what he said posted...

Here are some context quotes by other people though:
z3nmaster69@yahoo.com writes: "Some kid will get killed if he wears one of these in the hood. I'll guarantee that!"
Buzz1158 asks: "When will the first kid be killed for a pair?"

So if he responds to that in a way that says he's "watching kids and did not mind murdering them" then that's not tongue-in-cheek?

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (5, Informative)

Wansu (846) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398067)

  You're not a perp until you've done something, or at least set in motion clear actions towards doing something.

But he has done something. Communicating threats is a crime in most states.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (1, Troll)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398179)

But he has done something. Communicating threats is a crime in most states.

Communicating credible threats. "I want to do [bad things] to [indeterminable targets]" is not a credible threat.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (-1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398177)

if you threaten real world violence, free speech laws have always made provisions for you to be punished for that. libel as well

and this is correct. go ahead and say all the nasty things you want online, but when you cross the line into proposing real world violence: fuck you, throw your stupid ass in jail. you've crossed a line that free speech laws do not protect, never did, and never will. and this status quo is 100% correct

this is not new post 9/11, this is not giving into fears of terrorism, this is simple common sense: threaten real world violence, forfeit your freedom

as it has been for a long time, as it will be forever. grow up slashdot, deal with simple common sense and longstanding, well-established law that the majority supports and logic and reason support as well

this story is a nonstory, unless you are a spastic twit who doesn't understand EVERYTHING in life has limits, including free speech: when your words pass into the realm of threatening real world violence, which is threatening other people's freedom, their freedom to life and limb, you should and will be punished. as it should be. as it has been for a long time, as it always will be

when you threaten real world violence, you are, indeed, terrorizing people into altering their behavior out of fear. this is freedom destroying, this deserves to be punished

grow up slashdot. you can be a fundamentalist nitwit on many concepts, not just religion. and being a free speech fundamentalist, who believes no speech should be punished, is a form ignorant fundamentalist nonsense. everything, EVERY CONCEPT has limits: when they enter the realm of limiting other people's freedom. spreading fear with threats of real world violence is such an example

grow a brain. understand. move on

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (2)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398309)

if you threaten real world violence, free speech laws have always made provisions for you to be punished for that. libel as well

Libel is not part of criminal law but civil law. This is a big difference.

And only credible threats are punishable. Hypothetical threats are protected speech. Thankfully.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (4, Interesting)

thesandtiger (819476) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398269)

This is a huge problem in the US - our first responders are not well trained in handling people in emotional distress or who are mentally ill. Even medical first responders tend to be extremely ill equipped to handle this. Often by their ham-handed approach to things they make a situation much, much worse than it needs to be.

There are efforts to train LEOs and other first responders, but the problem is that by and large, the qualities that police forces look for when hiring officers do not tend to mesh well with the qualities ideal for working well with the mentally ill.

It's a horrible situation, and one that keeps on getting made worse in the US because politicians want to be seen as tough on crime to satisfy a bloodthirsty population out for revenge and punishment rather than rehabilitation and prevention.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (1)

N1AK (864906) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397909)


Perhaps by actually giving them some help, not arresting them under a terrorism related charge.

terroristic threatsterrorism. (1)

beanpoppa (1305757) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398243)

Perhaps by actually giving them some help, not arresting them under a terrorism related charge.

Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397917)

I got the impression this guy was posting a tongue in cheek response. If he was posting in jest, then it's another case like the bloke in Britain who tweeted about blowing up an airport that was closed due to inclement weather. Now you'll have to excuse me, as I need to take out the next chav who drives past my office window with ridiculously loud R&B music blaring out from their car and I can't find my rifle.

Source Link = Dead (1)

alphax45 (675119) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397777)

The source link doesn't work. It goes to a dead link and appears to be the mobile site. Please correct.

Re:Source Link = Dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397815)

Are you one of those idiots that sends messages to your IT people ending with "please advise"?

Re:Source Link = Dead (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397861)

How should we send messages? .... please advise

Re:Source Link = Dead (1, Informative)

alphax45 (675119) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397883)

I am one of the "IT people" and I am not an idiot, just lazy this morning.

Re:Source Link = Dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398111)

We have "IT people" like that here too, like the ones that got their MBA from university of phoenix but haven't been able to get a promotion out of help desk and PC support.

ugh (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397787)

Is it me or is a "terrorist threat" charge starting to become the "etc" category to charge people for statements that someone is uncomfortable with.

If he is making a threat that is a chargeable offense and the "terrorism" adjective is useless anyway.

Re:ugh (1, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397847)

One day I'll be arrested for using logic. "You're THINKING! That's illegal! You must tow either the Republican or Democrat party line! Independent thought is systemic dissension and causes disorderly disruption to our country's political operation, and is thus terrorism!"

I am Emmanuel Goldstein.

Re:ugh (2)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397899)

One day I'll be arrested for using logic. "You're THINKING! That's illegal! You must tow either the Republican or Democrat party line! Independent thought is systemic dissension and causes disorderly disruption to our country's political operation, and is thus terrorism!"

You should report to the computer. The computer is your friend. Trust the computer.

Re:ugh (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397897)

Terroristic threats have been the name for that sort of talk for decades.

It's not a "terrorism" charge.

Re:ugh (0)

Bigby (659157) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397911)

It is just the reincarnation of the blanket "national security" excuse. These excuses have always been around. Just look at "interstate commerce" and "general welfare".

On another note. ESPN message boards are full of the most vile posts on the Internet. Maybe this one thing will make postings about sports...

Re:ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398083)

On another note. ESPN message boards are full of the most vile posts on the Internet. Maybe this one thing will make postings about sports...

*gasp* that's not possible! Everyone knows violent people only play evil "video games"! Good old fashioned sports, movies, & music never encourage violent people!

Re:ugh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397931)

This is where everyone said the vague dialog of the law about terrorism would lead to poor abuse.

Re:ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397981)

Does this mean we can charge politicians or corporate executives with "terrorism" when they say something I'm uncomfortable with? Or is this another double standard that only applies against the working class?

Re:ugh (1)

emho24 (2531820) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397985)

And how is this different than the overuse of the "racism" charge? As soon as someone runs out of intelligent logical rebuttals, they revert to throwing out a "racism" charge in order to stifle opposing viewpoints.

Re:ugh (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398001)

Wasn't that the whole point of patriot act though?
So government officials can arrest and detain anyone they want without any probable cause or due process? Makes it easier to pick out the dissidents stirring up any trouble for the shepherds.

Re:ugh (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398079)

This crime has been called that for a very long time. Why should we rename our legal terms to make you feel better?

U$A, the land of terror. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397799)

Where everything i$ justified if any of the word$ "terrori$t", "childen", "copyright" is on the $entence.

Re:U$A, the land of terror. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397843)

you should get a new keyboard. all of your s are turning into $

Re:U$A, the land of terror. (1)

brainscauseminds (1865962) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397855)

In this case it is better to be safe than sorry. Monitoring online news comments is totally acceptable to prevent next Breivik cases, I would not classify it as terror or excessive surveillance. If we would consider things like ACTA, PIPA, SOPA etc, then its a different story.

Re:U$A, the land of terror. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397953)

Plea$e in$ert the $entece "It'$ for the children." In your comment $o the goverment can back you up.

Re:U$A, the land of terror. (1)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398015)

In this case it is better to be safe than sorry. Monitoring online news comments is totally acceptable to prevent next Breivik cases, I would not classify it as terror or excessive surveillance.

I don't think it's the monitoring that's questionable here, but arresting the man instead of talking to him and getting him help if still worried.

If I said here that I want to blow women who drive Honda Odysseys off the road, that doesn't make me a terrorist and shouldn't warrant my arrest.
Sure I want to do a lot of things, many of which are illegal. That doesn't mean I will do them, nor that I have an intent of doing them.

Re:U$A, the land of terror. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398029)

It doe$! On U$A broken legal $ystem.

Re:U$A, the land of terror. (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398103)

Why is THIS case one where it is better to be safe than sorry, and NOT all the others? What's so special about THIS case?

What happened to free speech! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397809)

Guess it died as soon as people found you could call something terorist.

Re:What happened to free speech! (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397875)

Guess it died as soon as people found you could call something terorist.

If we don't arrest everyone who sounds scary, the terrists have won!

Re:What happened to free speech! (2)

jbo5112 (154963) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397951)

Guess it died as soon as people found you could call something terorist.

If we don't arrest everyone who sounds scary, the terrists have won!

If we do arrest everyone who sounds scary, the terrists have won!

Re:What happened to free speech! (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398053)

the guy made a specific threat to murder people

that's not sounding scary. that's a specific threat. that is actionable. threats of violence and libel have always been exempt from free speech provisions, always will be, and this is the way it should be

grow up

Well I was being ironic, really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398291)

Because recently there were many people banging on about how great free speech was, evein if it was known to incite violence. It was ALL "FREE SPEECH IS TEH BESTEST EVA!!!".

Yet here we have a case where even in that bastion of free speech, even if it has no point other than to cause riots, is shitcanned and many people are defeinding this.

Re:What happened to free speech! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398297)

..this is the way it should be..

Only if you don't believe in free speech rights. If you don't like your 1st Amendment, you should change it, not misinterpret and violate it.

But hey, be happy! the big guns behind the censors are on your side. But you will never have peace until their guns are neutralized.

Re:What happened to free speech! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397949)

Free speech can't include the right to threaten to kill people.

"Several Guns Were Found"? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397829)

I love how the article points out that "several guns were found", implying that it is somehow out of the ordinary for an American citizen to legally own firearms. See? He owns guns, so obviously he must be a violent psychopath.

Stupid media.

Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397959)

In my state (Maine), we all own guns. I guess that makes us potential terrorists.

Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398229)

Er... so you missed the bit where everyone became a potential terrorist in the perception of authorities?

Get used to it, you'll always be treated as one now.

Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397995)

It's the number of guns: 1 gun it's "oh, he must just want one for home protection, maybe he lives in a bad neighborhood"; 2 guns and it's "oh, he must be a hunter", several guns and it's "oh no, he's either going to go on a shooting rampage or he's part of some anti-government anarchist militia!".

Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398237)

You must be a liberal idiot. People who enjoy shooting sports, hunting, or home protection... actually maybe any person that likes owning a gun will often buy several guns. There are many scenarios that I can imagine where owning more than one gun is perfectly reasonable. And, unless you are the ACLU, it's one of our hard fought after civil liberty. "I like collecting guns and can legally do so" is reason enough.

People like you reinforce the parent's post point.

Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398005)

I love how the article points out that "several guns were found", implying that it is somehow out of the ordinary for an American citizen to legally own firearms. See? He owns guns, so obviously he must be a violent psychopath.

Stupid media.

I don't get that impression from the article at all. They jsut state a fact, one that is (for a change!) relevant to the story they are reporting on - someone who was arrested on the charge of making an at least somewhat serious death threat (the absurd terrorrism tag not withstanding, he did make a threat) was found to possess multiple firearms. Gosh... what terrible reporting...

Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398019)

Worse yet, a large knife was found in the man's kitchen, leading the authorities to suspect he planned to engage in canibalism with his poor victims.

Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? (0)

emho24 (2531820) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398055)

"The arsenal in his home included a fully automatic single shot shotgun, 2 fully automatic assault ar-15's, 3 machine gun revolvers, a plasma rifle with 40 watt range ..."

Lets not forget he probably had a half a dozen AK-47'! oh noz!

Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398133)

There is a correlation though, very few go on a rampage with bare hands or knives. It's not a proof alone, but could be a basis of suspicion if something else is found.

Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398207)

Context. If I'm a gun collector or a hunter, owning several guns is not worrisome. If I'm posting in a public forum that I wouldn't mind killing kids, owning several guns takes on a different, more troubling dimension.

Free Speech (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397833)

I am glad I live in a country with a bill of rights and 1st amendment protection of free speech. Unless of course big brother does not like your speech so you must be a terrorist.

Re:Free Speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397891)

Freedom of speech has limits as well. Threatening speech usually is not.

Re:Free Speech (1, Informative)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397947)

Unless he threatened specific kids and was on an imminent killing spree, his comments are protected by free speech.

Re:Free Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398101)

A California man accused of posting comments on ESPN's website saying he was watching kids and wouldn't mind killing them

He threatened the children he was watching, that is a very specific threat, is it not?

Freedom of Speech.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397837)

vs Freedom of being an (internet) dumbass.

Update on the story here: http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/2012/09/20/lawyer-man-violent-online-posts-just-dumb/JPtvCDIq8kRbeaologqbgM/story.html

What I'm not finding is a quote of what he actually said, and that could make all the difference between overreaction by law enforcement or justified intervention.

Ie. "I'd kill some kids for those sneakers, LOL"

Re:Freedom of Speech.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397939)

For those too lazy to read the linked update:

[His attorney] said Eric Yee was simply trying to give his social and political commentary on shoes that cost $270 and was paraphrasing from the movie "American Psycho."

Re:Freedom of Speech.... (2)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397983)

The phrase "watching some kids" could easily be taken to mean "looking after", in which case I could easily believe "these kids are being such a pain I could kill them"; I'm pretty sure that's a sentiment expressed by adults since time immemorial, yet rarely acted upon (relative to the amount of times it's expressed).

Re:Freedom of Speech.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397987)

Your comment included the words 'I'd kill some kids' - you're clearly a terrorist and hate America and it is my duty to report you to the relevant authorities.

Damn! - I have just used the words 'I'd kill some kids' in my comment too - please you some upright citizen report me ASAP

USA, the land of the sneaker terrorists (1)

cvtan (752695) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397849)

Say this out loud and see how it sounds: "My kid needs $300 sneakers!". Does this sound good to you? Then you have the mind of a five-year-old and are still waiting for your golden ticket from Wonka.

Re:USA, the land of the sneaker terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397905)

300USD is how much a good imported pair of sneakers costs here in Brazil ;__;

If I were him ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397881)

I would demand a jury trial made mostly of people who have children.

I would then sue for false arrest - with a jury of mostly parents.

Please, everyone at one time or another has said something to the effect of "I'd like to kill ..." or "I'm gonna kill him!".

It's an expression of frustration. But unfortunately in this day and age of the preception of nut cases and terrorists around every corner (and over zealous forum monitors), bullshit like this is going to happen.

So, what is one to do? Don't post on sites. And with that .... see ya.

Re:If I were him ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398231)

One of these days, the police will find Anonymous Coward, and arrest him. But this has been a difficult search given the wide range of IP addresses he uses to make these posts.

Why do private companies run to the police with bs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397901)

So they monitor the board and report anyone they don't like to the police ? Isn't that the point of moderators ?

What benefit does anyone gain if everyone is running to the police about "threats" ? How does espn benefit from this ? What about the commentators ?

It just seems stupid, where if you disagree with something and start spouting off about it, they can clobber you IRL.

And it seems like ALL companies are doing this, facebook, google, aol, M$, apple. What do these companies actually gain by being government pigeons ?

Re:Why do private companies run to the police with (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397921)

As skeptical as I am of doing this it lets be fair. It doesn't sound like a frequent occurrence.

Yeesh (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397929)

I like the part where neither the summary or the article actually shows us exactly what he said so that we can judge its seriousness for ourselves.

Re:Yeesh (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398171)

Of course they don't. That would be terrorism. This kind of speech can be quite dangerous, only the forensic analyst testifying in court will be allowed to read it.

End of free speech as we know it (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397933)

Dude is obvious Troll/Moron.. but so are most people. Now you go to jail for trolling.

this really happened (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398021)

a kid was killed waiting in line to buy nike sneakers here in NY, 3 weeks ago:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120911/NEWS01/309110036/homicide-arrest-Gates-sneaker-store-robbery [democratandchronicle.com]

in other words, the cops have a reason to act on these threats, as this actually happens, and is not in the realm of absurdity, but reality

i know, the slashdot zeitgeist is to whine and moan about this

but i'm sorry, if you are going around threatening to kill people online, i'm glad the cops go after you

freedom? safety? blah blah blah: what the fuck are you doing threatening to kill people online?! you forfeit all free speech protections when you do that

c'mon stop with the bullshit slashdot

libel and threats of real world violence are exempt from free speech and subject to arrest and prosecution. as it should be. free speech has always had, and will always have, these exempt provisions

and this is the correct status quo!

grow up slashdot. seriously

enough with the hysteric, spastic, melodramatic ben franklin quotes about freedom and safety IN THE CONTEXT OF ASSHOLES WHO THREATEN REAL WORLD VIOLENCE

if you threaten real world violence, fuck you, throw your ignorant dumb ass in jail: 100% correct. really

Re:this really happened (2)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398077)

I didn't see where it was quoted exactly what he said. It's possibly taken way out of context. He was just being an internet troll more than likely. It's a knee jerk reaction that taxpayers will now spend MILLIONS on. yes.. this one case will cost tax payers MILLIONS.. maybe there is a better way to handle such things than throw a yale student in jail. Also where does it stop? If they government can decide if something was a legit threat or not what's to say they won't abuse that power? Oh wait they already do. This country is fucked that's why we bitch.

Insufficient information (2)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398065)

I've read TFA - even though the link in the summary is broken - and what I can't see is any detail on what the offending post actually said. I mean, are we talking about a "I see kids pestering their parents for $250 sneakers and sometimes I want to throttle them myself" type comment? If so... grotesque over-reaction, violation of constitutional rights etc.

Or are we talking about something which clearly expresses a credible intention to commit violence? If so... fine, go ahead and stop a major crime from occuring.

Other way around, perhaps? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398113)

Since TFA is down, I can't read TFA, but judging from the summary it read muchs more like he was commenting on working conditions in Nike's factories than making a "terrorist threat". Surely the US isn't yet at the stage where commenting on a company's business practices is considered terrorism?

Such idiocy alone deserves punishment. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398115)

Whether this idiot was serious or not, he should be punished for his incredible
stupidity. And he should be deprived of any weapons he might own, because
anyone who would exhibit such poor judgement should not be permitted to own
weapons.

governments and corporations are the enemy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41398313)

this is thought crime pure and simple

no different than the chinese government arresting someone for talking about democracy

the correct course of action is to send someone to tail the guy and investigate, you know actual police work

this is another reason why we need a decentralized internet not in control of any government or corporation

http://project-byzantium.org/ is a good start, get an old laptop, run a node, update it every 6 months -- if enough people do that the mesh will eventually be everywhere

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...