Calif. Man Arrested For ESPN Post On Killing Kids

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Calif. Man Arrested For ESPN Post On Killing Kids

Posted by timothy on Thursday September 20, 2012 @12:49AM from the just-a-suggestion-really dept.

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."

67 of 416 comments (clear)

Ermahgerd 1984! by concealment · 2012-09-20 00:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by arth1 · 2012-09-20 01:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 01:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by h4rr4r · 2012-09-20 01:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by metrometro · 2012-09-20 01:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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."
5. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by h4rr4r · 2012-09-20 01:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That is just people being people.
  In court he will not be tried for a future crime, but the actual crime he did commit.
6. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Wansu · 2012-09-20 01:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Wansu, th' chinese sailor
7. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by arth1 · 2012-09-20 01:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
8. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 01:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by h4rr4r · 2012-09-20 01:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
10. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by thesandtiger · 2012-09-20 01:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
11. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by arth1 · 2012-09-20 01:41 · Score: 2
  
  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.
12. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by interkin3tic · 2012-09-20 01:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
13. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by DarkTempes · 2012-09-20 01:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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?
14. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by wonkey_monkey · 2012-09-20 01:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
15. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by ToadProphet · 2012-09-20 01:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Terrorist threats have nothing to do with terrorism.
  Sorry, what?
  
  The term has been used for many decades before the Patriot act was even imagined
  Yes, and prior to 9/11'ish it was generally reserved for acts that sought a political goal through terror. It's only been very recently that the political motivation was dropped as a requirement.
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
16. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Gr33nJ3ll0 · 2012-09-20 01:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Which was what exactly?!?!?!? the 1 million dollar bail is higher than a normal murder charge bail. While making comments like this might be illegal, or in poor taste, the response seems a bit over the top.
17. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by OttoErotic · 2012-09-20 01:44 · Score: 2
  
  I don't see a link to his actual comments but it sounds to me like he was just making an obvious joke: "kids today suck. I wouldn't mind killing them for their shoes, ha-ha" Dumb maybe, but cry for help or terrorist threat? I'd have to see a lot more to make me think this is anything other than a somewhat-offensive joke.
  
  --
  "Once in Hawaii I had sex with a 102 year old male turtle. It is difficult to argue that it was consensual." - Steve Ma
18. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by pla · 2012-09-20 01:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But he has done something. Communicating threats is a crime in most states.
  
  TFA doesn't quote what he said, so we don't really know whether he did or did not make a "threat".
  
  If he said "I've had it, gonna go kill those little punks skateboarding on my sidewalk, back in a few", okay, possible threat (though in plenty of contexts it still would not count as a threat).
  
  If, as seems more likely, he said "I hate those goddamned kids, hope they get hit by a bus, might even do it myself one of these days", then no, not a threat.
  
  Fortunately, in situations like this the courts actually do fairly well at separating hurp from fact. Unfortunately, he will either cop a plea, or end up bankrupt paying for a lawyer.
  
  / What do I call it? "Justice!"
19. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by mcgrew · 2012-09-20 01:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  There's an article in today's local paper about just that.
  
  When the Jacksonville Developmental Center finally closes its doors, police there are worried that the 130 or so remaining residents will simply be released into the community because there is nowhere else for them to go.
  "And they're going to end up in jail," said Jacksonville Police Chief Tony Grootens. "That's the shame about it."
  Law enforcement officials and mental health professionals met Wednesday at the University of Illinois Springfield to hear about what they called Illinois' mental health crisis and how police and the community need to respond.
  "The word 'crisis' couldn't be a greater understatement," said Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, the keynote speaker at the symposium. "There is less attention and fewer resources being given to it, and the mentally ill are being thrown in jail.
  "By that neglect, law enforcement is the primary provider of mental health treatment," he said. "Nobody on the planet thinks that is good."
  
  The article continues...
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
20. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-09-20 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  It's not a terrorist threat. It's not about terrorism. It's a "mundane" mass murderer threat.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
21. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Dunbal · 2012-09-20 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  So randomly put people in jail because it's much easier than understanding that not everyone who says "I wish he was dead" or "I'll kill him" actually intends to carry out a murder. In fact it's a quite common expression. This is just more yankee hysteria. Well done America, keep flushing your "freedom" down the toilet.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
22. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Dunbal · 2012-09-20 02:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Making "terrorist threats" has been a crime for a very long time.
  It is a stupid, arbitrary excuse for a crime that is so ambiguous that the lawmakers responsible should die of shame. Oh dear - did I just make a terrorist threat against government officials? To the dungeon with me!
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
23. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Baloroth · 2012-09-20 02:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which was what exactly?!?!?!? the 1 million dollar bail is higher than a normal murder charge bail. While making comments like this might be illegal, or in poor taste, the response seems a bit over the top.
  Yes, but for most murderers the judge doesn't have strong reason to suspect they might go out and murder again. With the threats this guy made, the judge does have strong reason to suspect he might go and murder people. Hence, a high bail.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
24. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by icebraining · 2012-09-20 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And who decides what a "terrorist threat" is?
  
  A court of law. But for that he needs to be brought to it.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
25. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by SecurityGuy · 2012-09-20 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  do we assume he is joking?
  No, you don't assume. You use your observational powers to determine whether, when people say things like this online, they're serious. If they usually are, you infer this is a likely to be a real threat. If they very rarely are, you infer it's unlikely to be one. Perhaps you start investigating the guy to figure out if he's the rare one who wasn't just blowing off steam, trolling, or the bajillion other ways people say stupid things online. It's possible that happened. Maybe the police went to the guy's house and there's more to this story than "said something stupid online while legally owning guns". Hard to say with the info in TFA.
26. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by arth1 · 2012-09-20 02:30 · Score: 2
  
  how do you define credible?
  'The Supreme Court defines a "credible threat" as one that is "real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.'
  O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)
  Kegler v. United States DOJ, 436 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1212 (D. Wyo. 2006)
  'The injury or threat of injury must be both "real and immediate," not "conjectural" or "hypothetical."'
  Golden v. Zwickler,394 U.S. 103, 109-110 (1969)
  Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.,312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941)
  United Public Workers v. Mitchell,330 U.S. 75, 89-91 (1947).
  Was his threat real?
  If no, abort
  Was his threat immediate?
  If no, abort
  Was his threat conjectural?
  If yes, abort
  Was his threat hypothetical?
  If yes, abort
  If passing all these tests, a crime may have been committed.
  
  natural limits on free speech
  Who defines what's natural? You?
27. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by gnasher719 · 2012-09-20 02:31 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, but there's a presumption of future crimes that seems problematic. Note the final phrase in this quote from TFA:
  Not presumption, assumption. If you make threats, then it is reasonable to suspect you might follow up on those threats. On the other hand, making murder threats _is_ a crime in itself, so a crime _has_ been committed.
28. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by fustakrakich · 2012-09-20 02:54 · Score: 2
  
  And decades of judges and juries have ruled in favor of the slave owners property rights.. What's your point?
  Speech can't impinge on anything. That is impossible. Try a different angle. You have no right to censor anything, you only have your guns. And those who use them (as you advocate) to restrict speech are the tyrants. You are their enabler. The 'good' citizen who demands that we keep our heads down and comply with the given orders... Don't rock the boat..
  Still can't tell if your sig is intentionally 'ironic' or not. But it does provide a nice contrast to the comments you post..
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
29. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by schlachter · 2012-09-20 02:57 · Score: 2
  
  Also have to wonder how much of the post was intended to be satirical or to mock all the other comments that were saying these shoes might end up getting kids killed. I can see how a deeply sarcastic/creative person who is a bit asbergers might write something like this. It's like me saying that I might want to kill some religious people. It's fun to say, fun to provoke, and the world would certainly be better off...but I'm not going to go out and do it because I'm against violence.
  
  --
  My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
30. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by KGIII · 2012-09-20 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  I once told a (now ex) girlfriend this, "You know, sometimes your mother makes me think homicidal thoughts."
  I was arrested for "Terrorizing."
  I took the plea agreement so I'm unable to remark on the laws themselves and that's about all the information I have. The agreement bundled it into a bunch of other charges and was well worth it in my opinion as I was certainly guilty of the rest.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
31. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by garbut · 2012-09-20 03:11 · Score: 2
  
  But what's the new criterion that turns an everyday threat into a terrorist threat? If it's not "to effect political change" any more, what's the new distinction?
  
  --
  Oh, should I have sugar-coated that?
32. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by h4rr4r · 2012-09-20 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  That is not what I said at all.
  They avoid charging if they cannot win. If they can win has nothing to do with actual guilt. They do not want to hurt their ratio.
33. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by chmod+a+x+mojo · 2012-09-20 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  It depends on the context. Just saying " i'm gonna go kill a bunch of kids" for no reason could be construed as terrorism threats, but does not always equal actual threats. Especially if it is written in response to another post or the main story it can easily be sarcasm / satire E.G " I'm gonna go kill a bunch of X and be rich then" in response to something stating people might be killed for something expensive but common is sarcasm if not satire.
  
  Ever heard the "if you don't have anything good to say, just shut up" ? Works every time. It'd have helped the moron that is now in jail.
  Freedom of speech. If I disagree with something I have every right to express my opinion to the public through whatever means I have at my disposal - this includes even my views if they differ from the Federal Government[1]. While ESPN.com is a privately owned website, that only means they can delete views they do not agree with. E.G. an ESPN.com editor doesn't agree with me that the Browns would be better served if the current manager had a massive coronary and died on the field, ESPN could delete the post but should not, and CAN NOT have me arrested for stating my opinion.
  As it is, right now we do not have the actual posts made, or the context that they had been made in. The actual posts, and especially the context they had been made in can change actual meaning by quite a lot.
  [1] Want to see this in action? Look at any political campaign, every single one is trashing and badmouthing the opponent.
  
  --
  To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
34. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 03:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  terrorist threat
  Terrorism is a very specific thing. These laws were written and passed because it plays on the stupidity of Americans.
  Even if they guy was absolutely serious, in no way, shape, or form, would it actually be a "terroristic threat." Period.
  These laws were created such that it gives the state power over everyone for anything. You'd have to be a completely delusional to support these laws.
35. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by ToadProphet · 2012-09-20 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  But what's the new criterion that turns an everyday threat into a terrorist threat? If it's not "to effect political change" any more, what's the new distinction?
  Someone could be scared, somewhere. Maybe.
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
36. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by hairyfeet · 2012-09-20 04:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Uhhh...his bail is set HIGHER than for people that have CORPSES listed among the evidence okay? Now you want to investigate this guy cool, after the whole thing with the DK Rises i can see erring on the side of caution.
  But setting his bail higher than serial rapists, bank robbers, and actual "here is the corpses" murderers? i'm sorry but that is off the rails. Spin it however you want that is using bail for political purposes and is wrong.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
37. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by houghi · 2012-09-20 05:41 · Score: 2
  
  They did not only drop the political part. They also dropped the terror part.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
38. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by poofmeisterp · 2012-09-20 06:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Now I know what the "old folks" meant when they talk about times a'changing.
  Back when I was a boy, when I was pissed at someone, I could talk with friends and say, "I wanna kill that bastard."
  It got the steam out and anger went bye-bye.
  Nowadays I'm afraid to say anything about killing anything to anyone.
ugh by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-09-20 00:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 01:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Terroristic threats have been the name for that sort of talk for decades.
  It's not a "terrorism" charge.
2. Re:ugh by arth1 · 2012-09-20 01:05 · Score: 2
  
  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:Source Link = Dead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 00:55 · Score: 4, Informative

Correct link http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/post/california-man-arrested-for-threats-made-in-espn-com-comments?urn=top,wp583
Re:Source Link = Dead by jellomizer · 2012-09-20 00:59 · Score: 2

you have now been placed on a watch list in regards to your threat on the source link.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"Several Guns Were Found"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 01:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? by _Shad0w_ · 2012-09-20 01:10 · Score: 2
  
  If in doubt, resort to innuendo.
  
  --
  Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
2. Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? by SirGarlon · 2012-09-20 01:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The fact that the offender owns guns is highly relevant to the level of threat he poses.
  A person who owns guns is not usually problem.
  A person who makes death threats is a potential problem.
  A person who makes death threats AND owns guns is a potential problem of great severity.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
3. Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? by batquux · 2012-09-20 01:47 · Score: 2
  
  And somehow that is more relevant than actually quoting what he said. For all I know, they arrested him because his post "had nothing to do with sports."
4. Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? by clonehappy · 2012-09-20 01:50 · Score: 2
  
  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!".
  A "shooting rampage" is illegal. An "anti-government anarchist militia" is not illegal. Until they start shooting unprovoked. But most people probably believe that being a member of an anti-government group is illegal.
  
  This is called thoughtcrime, and it seems to be running unchecked these days. I don't even own a gun, but I sleep a lot better at night knowing that the men in black uniforms aren't the only people who have them.
5. Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? by jmerlin · 2012-09-20 04:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A person who makes death threats AND owns a knife is a potential problem of great severity, too. What about a fork? How about household chemicals? A belt? A hammer? A nailgun? A saw or chainsaw? Any number of gardening tools? How about one of those iron things you use to poke a fire? Pretty deadly spear you've got there. How about a maglite?
  
  The "he has a gun and therefore is automatically guilty" nonsense needs to stop. There are plenty of other good weapons to accuse, too.
6. Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-20 08:43 · Score: 2
  
  As one gun owner to another, stop being deliberately obtuse. They're not saying that he is guilty. Nevertheless, the potential danger that the guy represents, assuming that his threats were genuine (which cops pretty much have to assume at some point), is certainly higher if he has a gun compared to him just having a knife. The whole point of (most) guns is to be more efficient at that kind of thing.
  So, yeah, if I go online and threaten to kill someone, I would expect the police and others to treat me accordingly knowing that I have a shotgun and an AR in my house. Because if I really do go nuts, I can answer a knock on the door with a shotgun blast through it - something that's much harder to do with a knife. The court of law, now, is a different matter.
Re:Source Link = Dead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 01:02 · Score: 2, Funny

How should we send messages? .... please advise
Re:What happened to free speech! by arth1 · 2012-09-20 01:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!
270 buck by puddingebola · 2012-09-20 01:04 · Score: 5, Funny

$270? Maybe someone should kill LeBron James.
Yeesh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 01:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

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:What happened to free speech! by jbo5112 · 2012-09-20 01:10 · Score: 2

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:Freedom of Speech.... by _Shad0w_ · 2012-09-20 01:13 · Score: 2

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.
Insufficient information by RogueyWon · 2012-09-20 01:22 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Insufficient information by TheSwift · 2012-09-20 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  Really? Have you actually RTFA? "The online post on ESPN said that a shooting would be like the one in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured in July, authorities said."
  That's pretty explicit. There's a line between, "Man I just want to kill someone!" and "Here's how I'm going to do it." We act on these things because they've happened before.
  
  --
  "With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
2. Re:Insufficient information by LateArthurDent · 2012-09-20 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  Really? Have you actually RTFA?
  "The online post on ESPN said that a shooting would be like the one in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured in July, authorities said."
  That's pretty explicit. There's a line between, "Man I just want to kill someone!" and "Here's how I'm going to do it." We act on these things because they've happened before.
  Without the actual quote, I still don't know.
  I've seen people joke using disasters as references before. In bad taste? Maybe. Were they dangerous and actually considering hurting anyone? No.
Re:this really happened by circletimessquare · 2012-09-20 01:46 · Score: 2

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
Re:this really happened by circletimessquare · 2012-09-20 02:01 · Score: 2

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
Re:this really happened by circletimessquare · 2012-09-20 02:10 · Score: 2

"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
Re:What happened to free speech! by fustakrakich · 2012-09-20 02:31 · Score: 2

"memetics" (what a goof)... What, you trying to forget that one? You should...
How can speech, or its limitations be natural? You're out of it man.. But you are fun to watch.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What would he need to say, then? by TheSwift · 2012-09-20 02:34 · Score: 5, Informative

I find this is a pretty key line in the article: "The online post on ESPN said that a shooting would be like the one in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured in July, authorities said."
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."
Man Arrested For Saying Stupid Shit Online by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 02:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Good! Maybe we can get to work on people who post comments on YouTube now!
ESPN helped by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-09-20 05:25 · Score: 2

...the 1 million dollar bail is higher than a normal murder charge bail. While making comments like this might be illegal, or in poor taste, the response seems a bit over the top.
Doubtless ESPN advocated for such a large amount so after saying the number, Stewart Scott can add: "Boo-Yah!!"