Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Calif. Man Arrested For ESPN Post On Killing Kids

Posted by timothy on 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."

11 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Ermahgerd 1984! by concealment · · 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 · · 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 Wansu · · 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
    3. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by arth1 · · 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.

    4. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by interkin3tic · · 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.

    5. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  2. ugh by MickyTheIdiot · · 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.

  3. "Several Guns Were Found"? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. 270 buck by puddingebola · · Score: 5, Funny

    $270? Maybe someone should kill LeBron James.

  5. Yeesh by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. What would he need to say, then? by TheSwift · · 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."