Slashdot Mirror
Calif. Man Arrested For ESPN Post On Killing Kids
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."
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.
The source link doesn't work. It goes to a dead link and appears to be the mobile site. Please correct.
K Man
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.
Guess it died as soon as people found you could call something terorist.
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.
you should get a new keyboard. all of your s are turning into $
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.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
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.
Freedom of speech has limits as well. Threatening speech usually is not.
$270? Maybe someone should kill LeBron James.
If you get all three you can call bingo.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
As skeptical as I am of doing this it lets be fair. It doesn't sound like a frequent occurrence.
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.
Unless he threatened specific kids and was on an imminent killing spree, his comments are protected by free speech.
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).
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Perhaps by actually giving them some help, not arresting them under a terrorism related charge.
then why arnt U.S politicians that called for assange to be assassinated being charged and prosecuted.
This was the plot of a very good book I read.
it stops when you are able to express your opinions on the internet without threatening real world violence
if you threaten REAL WORLD VIOLENCE: fuck you, throw your ignorant ass in jail
as it should be. grow up and understand why
free speech has never, and will never, protect threats of real world violence. never, in any society, ESPECIALLY a freedom loving society because threats of real world violence casts fear and limits other peoples freedom by altering their behavior because somebody has indicated they intend to limit their freedom to life and limb. it's just a joke? how do you know? everything is a joke?
the greatest lesson some people need to learn about freedom is that your freedoms are not really limited by government actions (in a society that values freedom, there are plenty of authoritarian vile governments that do limit freedoms), but is limited by other people's freedoms. natural limitations on freedom. some people have a hard time grasping this concept
for example: my freedom to listen to music as loud as i want is limited by my neighbor's freedom to get a good night's sleep. my freedom to speed as fast as i want is limited by the guy around the bend when i lose control of my car and remove his freedom to life. my freedom to smoke is limited by the other guy's freedom to breathe clean air on the side walk next to me
see? natural limits on freedom
all of these situations are usually cast by ignorants in the realm of evil fascist freedom destroying government. "blah blah fascist government doesn't want me to smoke blah blah blah!" no: government has nothing to do with it. well, government does has something to do with it: judges and juries have decided that some forms of speech: threat of real world violence and libel, for example, are not really free. not because goose stepping nazis are out to remove your freedoms for no good reason, but because some form of freedoms naturally impede on the rights and freedoms of others. and therefore, freedom loving people have tasked their government to punish those dumbasses who out of evil or stupidity remove other people's freedoms. such as casting fear by threatening freedom to life and limb
everyone know this quote, and it is misused and out of context:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin
this quote doesn't apply here because it connotes, in this context, the idea that someone's freedom is being removed, in vacuum, without any other considerations
but there are other considerations: other people's freedoms
an accurate understanding of this situation is to see that freedom to speech is being balanced against freedom of life and limb. as is the case with many laws that "limit freedoms" "for no good reason" but is really protecting the freedoms of others from dumbasses who think freedom means freedom from responsibility
this is the accurate quote to think of in this context:
"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
grow up slashdot
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Take your authoritarian crap elsewhere. People like you would consider the declaration of independence an actionable threat if you actually read it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What is really really bad is that real kids are likely being even dying, being paid a pittance to make the $300 piece of shit shoes. Bu that's business, and we don't give a shit or at least close our eyes so we can have our baubles and trinkets.
Silence is a state of mime.
The obvious goal of any police department is to prevent crime, not just react after it's happened. If the guy had just said something as a bad job I'd like to think he'd be questioned, at worst, and quickly released.
The thing that seems to be overlooked is that some evidence was found that doesn't cast this guy in a good light. He dropped out of school and was found in possession of a few guns. That, in conjunction with his comments makes this a concern. Obviously, that could all be a series of coincidences. But then, making terrorist threats is a crime. That said, I'd like to read the comments for myself.
For the record, anyone buying $270 sneakers is an idiot. I think back to when I was in high school and a pair of Air Jordans was over $100 putting them, after inflation, not far off from what these cost. My particular school had a high poverty rate, at least as the government defines it. Very few drove cars to school. It was a status symbol doing so, even if it was an old beater. But there were tons of kids walking around with overpriced Nike's. The trendy thing to do was to buy from a certain shop downtown which took advantage by marking everything up. So you'd have these kids competing on how expensive their outfits were. They'd boast about how much they spent on a jersey, baggy jeans and sneakers.
A handful of kids would go out and get a crap job paying $8 and would think that they were on track for a successful career, convinced that school was no longer important. This all so that they could sustain their spending habits. This was back in the days when beepers were all the rage. I can't imagine what the hell it's like now.
It's messed up that people are still reacting differently because this was an online post than if it were a postcard or a phone call or note tacked to a utility pole. In other words, I fail to see what makes this newsworthy at all, let alone "news for nerds."
More than 70% of people in the U.S. are Internet users. That works out to over 200 million. OMG! It happened on teh IntarWebz! is a reaction that's about 15 years out of date.
Now if only the legal system would catch up with the new normalcy ...
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
fuck you you ignorant smearmonger
every word i wrote is in the name of LOVE OF FREEDOM
what spastic nitwits like you without a brain dont understand is that the limitations on free speech are NATURAL: the rights and freedoms of others
for example: my freedom to listen to music as loud as i want is limited by my neighbor's freedom to get a good night's sleep. my freedom to speed as fast as i want is limited by the guy around the bend when i lose control of my car and remove his freedom to life. my freedom to smoke is limited by the other guy's freedom to breathe clean air on the side walk next to me
and we, freedom loving people, task our government with punishing those dumbasses who out of evil or stupidity, think freedom means freedom from responsibility, and impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. for example: using "free" speech to cast fear and limit other peoples free mobility by indicating their freedom to life and limb is going to be removed
free speech has never, and will never protect threats of real world violence. and this is 100% correct and 100% in line with the values of a freedom loving society of free men
really!
says the majority of your fellow citizens, says judges and juries throughout the history of this nation, says logic and reason
goose stepping nazis are not out to detroy your freedom for no good reason, you dumb shit. your fellow FREEDOM LOVING citizens want those idiots who impinge on the freedoms of others removed from society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Aside from the other things which paint the accused in a bad way, short of him confessing to having issued the terrorist threat, I have to wonder what evidence they are using to identify him. We have established over and over that an IP address is not a valid identifier. Even if they siezed his computer and verified the message came from his computer and only his fingerprints were on it, it doesn't prove he sent the message beyond a reasonable doubt. We have ample evidence that criminals don't need to crack your home network to be on it. We have ample evidence that a criminal doesn't have to physically touch a machine to make use of it.
To make this comment seems incredibly stupid to the effect that it even seems unlikely to me that he did it at all... that someone playing a dirty joke on him is responsible.
I have lots of reasonable doubt on my end.
It was an actionable threat, the British sent troops to tackle the threat, and they lost the fight over it.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
It was an actionable threat. Remember that big war we had back then?
Good point, though. Sometimes threats are reasonable. The US might very reasonably tell people that if they storm our embassies, bad things are going to happen to them. That's a perfectly reasonable threat of real world violence.
If this sounds like a serious threat to you, perhaps you are the one who needs to "grow up." Please stop wasting my tax-dollars going after people who clearly do not intend to follow through on what they are saying and instead buy my grandmother some medicine.
"clearly do not intend to follow through on what they are saying"
how do you know that?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
circletimessquare has it on good authority that some article on the internet vaguely mentioned something about the guy possibly saying something along the lines of "not minding" maybe some kids getting killed for no particular specified reasons ... so just take it at his word, he is DEFINITELY right, the guy clearly made ACTUAL THREATS OF REAL WORLD VIOLENCE.
If you truly understood freedoms, you'd also understand the concepts of due process and a fair trial and burden of proof, and if you understood these concepts, you wouldn't be automatically quite possibly falsely claiming the guy is definitely guilty of making 'actual threats' with no fucking evidence whatsofuckingever.
Speech impinges nothing. You ideas of 'freedom' are more closely linked to Chinese, or Islamic political/religious ideals than that of any real freedom lover. You have no problem with the rules as long as you are the rule maker.
Oh, and what's that in your sig? 'actively wage war'? Why yes, we should.. on the censors.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
the guy threatened violence on line
the guy's words are evidence that he made a threat of violence
burden of evidence met
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the chinese and religious fundamentalist use threats of violence to impinge on natural freedoms
which i stand against
which is what i am standing against when someone threatens freedom to life and limb
free speech never included, and will never include the "right" to threaten the freedom to life and limb of others
everything i say flows from a love of freedom
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's referring to the post he made that they responded to. He didn't just say, "Ah man, I'd like to shoot kids who get expensive sneakers." It was more like, "Here's how it's going down..."
If you don't think this is grounds to go after someone (fine), then when should we pursue a terrorist(ish) comment online? How descriptive do you have to get?
"With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
Good! Maybe we can get to work on people who post comments on YouTube now!
Everything you say flows from a place that's not polite to mention in front of women and children.
You have not a clue what free speech means. Try not to conflate "say" and "do". They are very different things. One is entirely ethereal, nothing but wisps of air, with no intrinsic value of any kind.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
i clearly have a better grasp on the concept of free speech than you do
but i'm not going to argue with you anymore, you are clearly a crackpot
rather than argue with me, whom you envision as some avatar of fascism when in reality everything i say comes from a love of and better understanding of freedom than you, you should try arguing against the laws of your own country:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/true-threats
grow a brain, halfwit. i better understand freedoms, my understanding protects freedoms better than you (such as the freedom to life and limb), and i have a better grasp on the founding fathers true intent
but, as i said, i'm not going to argue with you anymore
because you're just shooting the messenger
you're not arguing with me. you're arguing with the established law and the intents of the founding fathers of your own country
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Because that is the type of comment that gets made around the globe untold times every day. A statistically insignificant portion of them actually mean it. You simply can't expect police to investigate every time someone makes these types of remarks. There's a clear, common sense difference between homicidal hostility and frustrated venting. Otherwise, diverting resources to investigate such things to other, more fruitful goals would surely bring a greater benefit to society.
I'm pretty sure that what this guy said was stupid, inappropriate, etc. but does it really warrant him being arrested and held on $1M bail? Did he have a prior criminal record? The article makes no mention of it so I will assume that he does not. Ok, so they found some guns in his house but does that mean that he was intending to shoot people or was he going duck hunting?
And what exactly is a "terrorist threat" anyhow? These days it seems like it's whatever the government wants it to mean. I've got a feeling that if this guy really wanted to go kill some kids he would have just done it without posting it on ESPN's website first.
Basically I think it's an overreaction on ESPN's part and on the part of the police. This reminds me a little bit of the incident that happened when an ESPN writer wrote an article about Jeremy Lin, the NY Knicks basketball player and used the phrase "chink in the armor" somewhere in the story. They fired the guy over it. I think a simple apology, which he did make by the way, should have sufficed. Ever since then I get my sports news elsewhere.
You never presented an 'argument'. You're just trolling fascist bullshit. You have no understanding. You're just a conformist, trying to protect what social status you might have. 'Freedom' is a buzzword for people like you. I see the same from the right wing nuts and other so called 'liberals' also. You're just another prohibitionist.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
that is when i saw a guy get shot for his Jordans in Reno. just this week a guy was shot dead in a park in Stockton, CA for his gold chain and shoes.. you cant stop dumb people from being dumb unless you let natural selection take effect. too many doctors saving the lives of dummys who then but expensive shoes and then some other dummy shoots them, they get burried and fed the magotts so forth, cows get fed, shoes are made and bought... circle of life.
This will be counted as a foiled terrorist attack.
Because that is the type of comment that gets made around the globe untold times every day. A statistically insignificant portion of them actually mean it.
citation please
You simply can't expect police to investigate every time someone makes these types of remarks.
yes, we can. says the well-established law of the land i live in
There's a clear, common sense difference between homicidal hostility and frustrated venting.
you're right, it's something like the difference between saying "i'm so frustrated" and "i am going to kill someone"
Otherwise, diverting resources to investigate such things to other, more fruitful goals would surely bring a greater benefit to society.
i think a fruitful goal of society would be punishing those who make threats of violence, thereby minimizing violence in society, which is a better society. some of those threats are not real. for those dumbasses, they will have learned a valuable lesson about the difference between free speech and threatening someone else's freedom to life and limb
but you're not arguing with me. you're just shooting the messenger. you're arguing with well-established law of your country, which i am fruitlessly attempting to interpret for someone who refuses to understand logic and reason on the topic:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/true-threats
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
fuck you you ignorant smearmonger ... LOVE OF FREEDOM ... spastic nitwits like you without a brain dont understand ... goose stepping nazis are not out to detroy your freedom for no good reason, you dumb shit. ... those idiots who impinge on the freedoms of others
Yeah, that sounds like a balanced, insightful response to the parent. Because nothing strengthens your argument more than calling the person you strongly disagree with a nitwit without a brain and dumb shit
And that's irrespective of taking any sides in your argument.
stop calling me a fascist like an immature teenager whose dad told him he can't have the car keys, and try to understand the laws of your own country
i'm not arguing with you, because you're not arguing with me. you're arguing with the founding fathers and the laws of your own country:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/true-threats
do you understand?
do you really?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"If the pizza delivery man brings the wrong order one more time and I'll kill him!"
Is that really a threat? Am I actually planning to murder the delivery man?
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.
do you understand?
do you really?
I doubt very much that you do.
Censorship is fascism. If you support it, then you're a fascist, and not a very well closeted one. You haven't presented a valid argument because, for the simple reason, you have none. So.. you must troll.
'salright.. I'm easily amused.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I am somewhat sure you're just guessing here; venting some anger, or whatnot. My personal experience is exactly the opposite: mental health "professionals" after some time having dealt with mentally ill people have to think about their budget. Or maybe there are other reasons why they call cries for help "behaviour that has nothing to do with mental illness". Maybe it had something to do that I was perceived as a middle class white guy with a good education (which is of much use if one's severely depressed) and hence so much more opportunities compared to a low educated poor alcoholic. In other words: I had no good reason to be so damn depressed. And those meds? Well, they just work right? And if not, you're not cooperating with them. That was actually what I was been told, no kidding. And no they didn't mean that I was not taking the medication or not taking it properly. No explanation was given...
So yeah, on one occasion the police had to step in -- mental health "pros" were called but refused to come; it was just behavior -- and they were extremely caring and genuinely concerned about my health. They took me to the police station and make some mental health "professionals" show up, and I was taken in (odd how they suddenly changed their opinion).
My experience is that mental health "professionals" are all caring the first 3 times you show up. You get pills, etc. But if things don't work out soon, as they don't quite often; SSRIs et al don't work for everybody or: there's still no cure for depression that just works, you become an attention seeker that can be safely ignored (or should be handled by the law) and before you know it you're diagnosed with Borderline Personality Order. Not after some research and some interviews, no, just like that. Since to other's in the field it means: "beware, major asshole who doesn't want to get 'cured'".
In short, in my experience you're very mistaken. A lot of mental health "professionals" are in my experience worse than "the law".
Finally, the above is one example. I've been living in 3 different countries and my experience in 2 was somewhat identical. Both countries that are considered civilised and having good (mental) health. Things are now a little better (still clinical depressed) so no experience yet with country 3.
no you don't understand
out of willful ignorance or stupidity
your made up reality, actual reality be damned
you're just a crackpot shooting the messenger
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Numerous posts in this thread have made jokes along these lines : "$315 for a pair of sneakers? I'm going to kill LeBron James". Should they be prosecuted?
If not, why not? Why might the same reasoning not be made for the quote this guy who got arrested made? Remember, we don't actually know what he said yet, nor the context it was said in.
If you do want the people who made these jokes arrested, I don't really know what else to say...
the guy threatened violence on line
the guy's words are evidence that he made a threat of violence
burden of evidence met
[citation desperately needed]
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
your made up reality
You mean there is no law that protects free speech? What I copied is not the law of the land? What 'messenger' am I 'shooting'? Oh, maybe you mean those who have the message wrong, and can just infer things that aren't actually there to suit his (or his bosses) personal tastes. What a normal person would consider a hallucination. No, I don't want to shoot them. Where would late night talk shows get their material? But I will admit, hallucinations are easy to sell as something quite diametrically opposed to their real intent. You're a perfect case in point, and getting funnier all the time. But you have no love for freedom, only for comfort, nice, orderly comfort. Got news for ya.. you can actually have both. You just have to allow other people to be comfortable. There's nothing to stop you from tuning them out if you find them so 'offensive'.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
While I am skeptical of governments who punish bad thoughts, I think in this case we're facing a practical decision. A surprising number of people who are about to do horrible things announce their intentions. The best way to get them help is to put them in the hands of people who can actually stop them. A psychiatrist cannot necessarily do so, even if required to report the statements of their patients to the police. However, a police officer can immediately arrest this person, take away his or her weapons, and avoid the possible worse outcome of having the person become a perp (as you say), shoot up some kids, and then get shot by the cops.
how do you know that?
The burden of proof is on the accuser.
How do you know he will?
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
It was an actionable threat. Remember that big war we had back then?
Yeah, now it's just treated as paranoiac hyperbole, and probably still as an actionable threat by today's government.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. shut up
2. educate yourself. here's some intellectual charity for you, start here:
http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases
3. then open your ignorant piehole
stop shooting the messenger, stop acting like a teenager throwing a temper tantrum because life is a little more complicated than you think it is
i'm not your problem. the reality of well-established case law is
grow the fuck up child
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Are they going to arrest all the soccer moms that have this on their iPod? from the song... All the other kids with the pumped up kicks You'd better run, better run, faster than my bullet Read more at http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858837818/#KzMuORE2PmSy1RHV.99
Heheh. you're a real pip there, Edith.
The courts are there to uphold authority, not protect a person's freedom. They will never jeopardize their own power.
You support censorship. That makes you and your desire for authority the problem. I have no grudge against the long dead 'forefathers'.
You are so naive. Must be that sheltered life you lead.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Doubtless ESPN advocated for such a large amount so after saying the number, Stewart Scott can add: "Boo-Yah!!"
I clicked through several links before giving up on finding a direct quote of the threat. What is the point of discussing this without knowing what the man wrote?
No, no; you missed the buried lede. He's a non-white male, therefore not a rights-defending Patriot, but a gun-wielding murder machine - and an unscrutable one, at that.
I guess a round of applause is due to the 9/11 terrorists and their relative entities. Their actions have made the U.S. respond to stupid free speech statements in a way that is equivalent to a terrorist threat, AND treated as such!
Congrats, congrats.
The government won't have that trouble today. The document actually can be considered actionable. Only this time there is nobody to stand up. How many people here would sign such a thing? Or pass a bill of rights as presently written?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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 ?
ESPN is protecting itself from any future negligence lawsuits that might have occured had the guy actually made good on his threats. Reporting his threat to leo's would absolve them from any future liability.
... "whoops, did I type that out loud?"
In this case it is better to be safe than sorry.
I don't think arresting people for saying that they wouldn't mind killing someone is a better solution just like I don't think the TSA is an acceptable solution even if we had a real problem with terrorism. People seem to want to live in this fantasy land where there are never any casualties (even if it means throwing away freedom for security).
If we would consider things like ACTA, PIPA, SOPA etc, then its a different story.
Right. This is about children/potential murderers, and is therefore okay.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Just one controversial call at the plate could result in thousands of arrests for making terroristic threats against the umpire...
if you threaten REAL WORLD VIOLENCE: fuck you, throw your ignorant ass in jail
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- circletimessquare
This could easily be considered a threat of real world violence. Someone should throw that ignorant asshole in jail.
He admits to having committed a thought crime when he was a kid. He also used the "k" word in his post along with the "b" word which is irrefutable proof that he is a bad person with bad intentions.
O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
he was arrested for investigation of making terrorist threats
Does that mean most of the work of the DHS is illegal?
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.