Slashdot Mirror


VA Tech Student Arrested For Posting Perceived Threat Via Yik Yak

ememisya writes: I wonder if I posted, "There will be another 12/7 tomorrow, just a warning." around December, would people associate it with Pearl Harbor and I would find myself arrested, or has enough time passed for people to not look at the numbers 12 and 7 and take a knee jerk reaction? A student was arrested for "Harassment by Computer" (a class 1 misdemeanor in the state of Virginia) due to his post on an "anonymous" website [Yik Yak]. Although the post in and of itself doesn't mean anything to most people in the nation, it managed to scare enough people locally for law enforcement agencies to issue a warrant for his arrest. "Moon, a 21-year-old senior majoring in business information technology, is being charged with Harassment by Computer, which is a class one misdemeanor. Tuesday night, April 28, a threat to the Virginia Tech community was posted on the anonymous social media app Yik Yak. Around 11:15 p.m., an unknown user posted 'Another 4.16 moment is going to happen tomorrow. Just a warning (sic).' The Virginia Tech Police Department released a crime alert statement Wednesday morning via email informing students that VTPD was conducting an investigation throughout the night in conjunction with the Blacksburg Police Department."

254 comments

  1. Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like threat by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The slashdot poster sounds sympathetic to it as a free speech warning or something, but I don't see how to read it as anything but a threat.

    Maybe I missed something.

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
  2. i don't understand the premise of the post by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    if you make a threat, people aren't going to ignore that

    this is not an overreaction or a big brother issue

    you can never expect to make a statement which is clearly a threat and people are just going to ignore it

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by ememisya · · Score: 0

      clearly a threat

      How clear was 12/7? I'm assuming 9/11 will never mean emergency services for you, what about 7/11?

    2. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can never expect to make a statement which is clearly a threat and people are just going to ignore it

      Whether you ignore it or not is irrelevant. It should not be illegal.

      The First Amendment makes no exceptions for "threats" — our understanding that shouting "fire" in a crowded place is illegal is flatly wrong, the Amendment protects that speech from government's actions like any other.

      Except you are wrong.

    3. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "what about 7/11?"

      slurpees. there, I said it. now come at me bro.

    4. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      The First Amendment

      The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. We are not obligated to ignore threats.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    5. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure he'll be able to clarify as to what he meant by the message to a jury if he feels so inclined.

    6. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by mi · · Score: 0

      The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

      Meaningless maxim. Meaningless, but dangerous to all of our freedoms, for it allows discarding any part of the Bill of Rights at the moment's notice.

      We are not obligated to ignore threats.

      Irrelevant. We are obligated to not make them illegal. That's all.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      every freedom has limitations, natural limitations dictated by logic and reason, not big bad government arbitrarily limiting your freedom

      namely, when you use your freedoms to infringe on other peoples's freedoms

      such as their freedom to live, and live free of threats

      it is illegal to to threaten lives. it's the only logical position. to *preserve* freedom, you see

      there's a certain kind of selfish moron who thinks freedom means "i can do anything i want, damn the consequences." of course, true freedom only exists with true maturity and responsibility, which understands freedom to mean "i can do anything i want, as long i don't infringe on the freedom of others"

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's highly improbable that anyone can live without ever being threatened. Have you driven a car in a city before?

    9. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's highly improbable that anyone can live without ever being threatened. Have you driven a car in a city before?

      I'm not sure I understand your point at all.

      Nobody is saying that you have the "freedom to never be threatened." They're saying that when abuse your "freedoms" to make threats against the "freedoms" of others, that behavior is - and rightly, ought to be - illegal.

      We have no problem saying "My right to live trumps your right to shoot your gun in any direction you wish, at any time, in any place." As a result, we've declared your right to murder me does not exist - it is illegal.

      If you use your "Freedom of Speech" to threaten violence and the use of force against me, you have abused your freedom and curtailed mine: as a result, threats of violence are illegal as well.

      You can use your freedom to threaten me if you want, but you cannot be surprised at the consequences that result, unless you are an idiot.

    10. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say you are a postman. Your job is to walk around for 8 hours a day delivering mail. You do so on foot and your route is such that you are never inside.

      If I follow you around all day long shouting in your ear (or even speaking in your ear), do you have no right to make me stop? Remember, I'm just using my First Amendment protected freedom of speech.

      No, in fact, you can make me stop. It is harassment for me to do so. But it's not the speech that is criminalized, it's the annoyance factor and unreasonable interference that is criminalized.

      With regard to shouting fire in a crowded theater, it is considered likely to cause imminent injuries and/or deaths. I'm not sure how allowing that particular speech serves any useful purpose.

    11. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's people like you that make me want to burn this place down.

    12. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by localman · · Score: 1

      Has anyone every told you that you talk like the Borg?

    13. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      well said

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    14. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      there will always be immoral actions, yes. and? your point?

      we're talking about what is right and what is wrong, idiot. not that wrong actions merely exist

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    15. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      You do not have a right to live free of threats, sorry

      i stopped reading there, you're an idiot

      as a free man, i absolutely have the right to live free of threats

      not that i expect no one will ever threaten me in my life, there's always some fucking douchebag

      but that when my life is threatened, i can expect that person to recognize they have transgressed on my freedoms and to apologize or make amends, or be caught and punished by me, someone else, or the authorities, for transgressing against the freedoms of others

      freedom must be maintained from all threats, indeed

      what most don't understand is that threats to your freedoms do not come only from above, corrupt authority, but also from losers around you who abuse your freedoms out of malice or stupidity

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    16. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or like Pinhead from Hellraiser?

    17. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      what most don't understand is that threats to your freedoms do not come only from above, corrupt authority, but also from losers around you who abuse your freedoms out of malice or stupidity

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

      The word "threat" has two entirely separate meanings: (1) a declaration of an intention, and (2) a risk or possibility of loss or trouble. The first is a speech act, the second is a state of nature. Try to understand the difference between these two fundamentally different meanings, then formulate a coherent statement of what you mean by "freedom" and how it is put at risk through speech acts. Be sure to look up and understand the different meanings of the word "freedom" as well.

    18. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you make a threat, people aren't going to ignore that

      this is not an overreaction or a big brother issue

      you can never expect to make a statement which is clearly a threat and people are just going to ignore it

      So if I say I am warning you about an imminent punch in the face scheduled for tomorrow you take that as a threat? Even the constant reference to 9/11 which really should be 09/11/2001 since there are not attacks every September 11th since the wake of 09/11/2001. The terrorists won the moment the US Government went into panic mode and passed draconian laws in the name of "protecting the homeland." Before that event did anybody refer to their country as the homeland? My recollection of history is the terms fatherland and motherland were used by fascist governments and socialist/communist governments.

    19. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      if you have knowledge of an attack, you tell everyone who is going to do it

      if you just tell of an attack coming, you're the one who is going to attack

      this is just basic social skills here

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    20. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you're not pointing out logical fallacies you're pointing out side topics. stay on topic and make a relevant point, don't look to the existence of other points and say that somewhere in regards to another topic my point doesn't apply. no shit genius, but that's not the topic before you

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    21. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by N1AK · · Score: 2

      Meaningless, but dangerous to all of our freedoms, for it allows discarding any part of the Bill of Rights at the moment's notice.

      It isn't meaningless, and it isn't dangerous. Allowing all speech, in all circumstances, to be free from consequence is viable. It shouldn't be ok to incite mass panic (yelling fire in a crowded venue) nor should it be ok to threaten violence (a bunch of racists standing outside a polling booth with a guns and clubs, telling blacks they'll get it if they try and go inside).

      It is naive to think that complete, and total, freedom of speech was ever intended. Heck, even punishing people for lying under oath would breach an over literal interpretation.

    22. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by thaylin · · Score: 2

      If you use your "Freedom of Speech" to threaten violence and the use of force against me, you have abused your freedom and curtailed mine: as a result, threats of violence are illegal as well.

      that was the person you replied to's point, people threaten others every day, yet these charges would never be brought against them.

      Besides prove it is a threat and not just you being over sensitive.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    23. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by thaylin · · Score: 1

      So what was the specific threat to your, or anyones, life. Are we never allows to say "tomorrow will be another x date" because there may have been something bad that happened on that date, and ignore everything else.

      Stop living in fear.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    24. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      yes, exactly

      i don't understand how someone couldn't understand your point

      all freedoms have natural, logical limitations: where they impinge on someone else's freedoms

      there is some weakness of intelligence or social ability going on in a person who can't conceive this

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    25. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      that was the person you replied to's point, people threaten others every day, yet these charges would never be brought against them.

      Because threats made by a random driver, often through a closed window, against another random driver in traffic are widely believed not to be serious. If the threatening driver proceeds to follow the threatened around, it does become criminal.

      Besides prove it is a threat and not just you being over sensitive.

      That what the courts are for: to determine whether a "reasonable" person would interpret the behavior as a legitimate threat. eg, actors on stage regularly shout "Fire" in crowded theaters, and you are probably clever enough to shout fire, as a member of the audience, in a way that people realize you're "joking."

      That was one of the big changes after 9/11: it stopped being possible to "joke" under certain circumstances. Joking about carrying a (picture of a) gun through security gets your "gun" confiscated. Using the phrase "another 9/11" "another Columbine" (or, at VA Tech, "another 4/16") on the internet gets you a visit from NSA or the local police. There used to be procedures for distinguishing real bomb threats from idle or frivolous threats, but they're pretty hard to apply to 140 characters.

    26. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      You can say that. But when you link another day to that date, as the idiot did by posting 4/16 on 4/28 and then state, "Just a warning", then there is a valid risk that you might be aware of, or planning, events like those that happened on 4/16 that will be enacted on 4/29.

      And if the police ignored this because "free speech has no limits" and there was another attack, how much shit would they be in?

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    27. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Because threats made by a random driver, often through a closed window, against another random driver in traffic are widely believed not to be serious. If the threatening driver proceeds to follow the threatened around, it does become criminal.

      Yet you think believed threats made by a random computer user through a closed computer terminal against unknown people are more serious? Where was the following in this case

      That what the courts are for

      No, that is what the police are for. The police are suposed to look at this and follow up and make a determination. Was the threat real, or some stupid post on the interweb. Obviously because of how weak the charges are they found the threat to not be credible.

      That was one of the big changes after 9/11 it stopped being possible to "joke" under certain circumstances. Joking about carrying a (picture of a) gun through security gets your "gun" confiscated. Using the phrase "another 9/11" "another Columbine" (or, at VA Tech, "another 4/16") on the internet gets you a visit from NSA or the local police. There used to be procedures for distinguishing real bomb threats from idle or frivolous threats, but they're pretty hard to apply to 140 characters.

      So you have given up your freedom for security, you know how the quote goes I assume.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    28. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Who said police should ignore it? Look into it and verify the if it is a reasonable threat, or something stupid, but dont though out all reason.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    29. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't say that! It makes me feel threatened and is against the rules!

    30. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

      Remember 7/11 buddy. 7/11. ... I think today is 2 for 1 Slurpee day.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    31. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by ememisya · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Because we are too easily scared, and there is this false trend that 20/20 hindsight brought us which is believing if only we did enough, maybe we can stop evil. I think it's the same belief which makes us clap if we believe in fairies, or rather just as effective statistically. Instead what we have today is the fear, and that's all it is, the fear that even if you're an anonymous coward, better watch what you say, Santa Clause is in town. That's called a chilling effect, it unites some in fear, and silences others, and gives the illusion of security.

    32. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short answer: My God you're a fucking idiot.

      Long answer: In our system of government, when there's a question about what the Constitution means and how its words should be resolved, we have a system to resolve that. We ask the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, for a ruling. President for this was established very on in the history of our country, and is one of the cornerstones of the system of 'checks and balances' that every American youngster learns in school by the 8th grade. That said, the courts have also established, and again more than 200 years ago, that every right enumerated in the Constitution has limits, based on whether or not the government can show a 'compelling interest' in establishing that limit, and because one person's 'exercise' of a right can destroy the rights of others. You might think that yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is legal by your understanding of the law, but I'd say that the fact that doing so would easily get you arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced in every jurisdiction in this country proves that your opinion on the matter is worth jack shit. I'd also say there is something called fucking common sense, but you seem to be lacking in that area.

      And speaking of 8th grade, I realize that you were probably a sheltered 13 year old male who read Ayn Rand one day and spontaneously had his first erection and ejaculation splattering the pages of Atlas Shrugged. However, I suggest you find a way to join the real world with the rest of us before you become a fire-breathing, jargon-spouting, court-abusing Sovereign American Citizen who has a miserable life tilting at windmills before finally being dumped into jail for decades by a society that has enough of your bullshit.

    33. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is perfectly legal. The law that that was based on was based on the same logic as the government preventing people from passing out Anti-WW1 pamphlets. Look it up. It was struct as unconstitutional. Everyone who cites it has their head up history's ass.

    34. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      you're not pointing out logical fallacies you're pointing out side topics

      I'm pointing out one fallacy, and it's a big one: you're using the term "threat" in two unrelated senses.

      Someone making a "verbal threat" is not "threatening your freedom".

    35. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      It shouldn't be ok to incite mass panic

      For Speech to be dangerous, it must be followed by an action. Yelling "fire" in a theater isn't illegal, it happens all the time (Actor on stage)"ready, aim, fire!" The resultant panic is what makes it dangerous. If I yelled fire in a theater, where there was no actual flames, and nothing happened, then .. nothing happened. You shouldn't be able to arrest me for nothing.

      This is like all the new Politically Correct thought crimes that people love to embrace, you know the poor pizza shop in Indiana, who didn't commit any crime, and yet the harm done by those crying "HATE!!!!!" (no hate, just a difference of opinion on longstanding definition of "marriage" vs the new hip definition), which DID cause harm.

      IMHO, speech that is the worst kind, is the kind that needs the strongest defense.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    36. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      911 is emergency services
      9/11 was a terrorist attack

    37. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Declaring intent is a threat. "I'm gonna punch you" is a threat. That alone is enough in many places to act preemptively. But one has to have REASON to believe the threat can be carried out. It comes down to "reason", which is about as nebulous as one can get.

      In the case above (4/16) is hardly a threat, because the intent is completely unknown. Random numbers, even in the context of the Campus shooting, isn't enough to gauge a threat. It just isn't. The police should investigate, and even make an arrest (investigative detention) if needed. BUT to charge a person with a crime, for mentioning a date? Without any further cause is just wrong. Yeah, the police had to do their work, boo hoo. Not enough to charge with a crime.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    38. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Which is a real crime! I'm diabetic .. :-(

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    39. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by mi · · Score: 1

      It shouldn't be ok to incite mass panic (yelling fire in a crowded venue)

      It shouldn't, huh? How about statements like "President is a war-criminal" or "He is not a natural-born citizen" — can such speech not some day be banned under the same doctrine? Because it does interfere with the government's efficiency and, consequently, the entire country's quality of life, does not it? We might think this ridiculous today, but many countries — including the various worker's paradises — consider insulting the Dear Leader a felony already. Don't you recognize a slippery slope while sliding down on it?

      There is a movement to ban "hate speech" already. The entire Yik Yak app is banned on many campuses and today's students are being trained to accept such a ban already, so it can not be far away, that the thought-police spills out from those institutions into the rest of our world.

      For the past 7 years, the number one rebuttal to any critics of the current President was that they are "haters". Do you think, we are far away from the sitting President becoming off-limits for criticism? We aren't — and it all started, when we were sold the bogus premise of "some speech ought to be illegal"...

      It is naive to think that complete, and total, freedom of speech was ever intended.

      Is it naive? Then I share my naivete with Benjamin Franklin, for example — a Founding Father — who considered any abuses of the freedom of speech to be a lesser evil than entrusting anyone the power to suppress them. For example:

      Those abuses of the freedom of speech are exercises of liberty. They ought to be repressed; but to whom dare we to entrust the care of doing it. An evil magistrate intrusted with power to punish for words, would be armed with a weapon the most destructive and terrible. Under pretense of pruning off the exuberant branches he would be apt to destroy the tree.

      Do you honestly believe, the fine magistrates of the 21st century Virginia would've helped calm Franklin's fears of that "the most destructive and terrible" weapon?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    40. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Declaring intent is a threat. "I'm gonna punch you" is a threat.

      Yes, it is a "threat" as in "a verbal statement of intent to cause harm". "I'm gonna punch you" is a "threat" even if I'm in handcuffs and obviously incapable of carrying it out.

      It is not a "threat" as in "a significant risk of loss or damage". A violent criminal who is not in handcuffs is a "threat" to police even if he is completely silent.

      Those are two entirely different meanings of the word "threat".

      CircleTimesSquare repeatedly mixed those two meanings up in his postings, making his statements rather incoherent.

      Another thing people get confused about is legality of threats vs civil issues. The speech act of saying "I'm going to shoot you" shouldn't be illegal, and there is no reason for making it illegal, but in some situations, it may be sufficient to justify self-defense or civil action.

    41. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by mi · · Score: 1

      yes, exactly

      AOL!

      all freedoms have natural, logical limitations: where they impinge on someone else's freedoms

      Sure. Now, please, explain, whose freedoms were impinged by the speech in TFA...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    42. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No he fucking isn't, shitwipe. ALL speech is protected. Fucking all of it.
      IF your speech has DIRECT consequences you can be held liable for those consequences. You can NEVER be legally punished for the content of your speech, nor can you be legally prevented from saying whatever the hell you want.

    43. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      As I understand it...

      • If I'm in a crowded theater and I yell "Fire!" and everybody laughs and keeps watching the show, there's no problem.
      • If I yell "Fire!" and everybody gets up and leaves in an orderly fashion and no one is injured but the show is interrupted, I might get sued by the theater owner who had to refund tickets to all those people or schedule a new show for them.
      • If I yell "Fire!" and everybody panics and runs out of theater, trampling anybody who gets in their way, I can be arrested for various crimes because of my actions.

      "Free speech" does not relieve you of the consequences.

    44. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is shallow and weak. A lone, psychotic individual wielding widely available guns and wreaking havoc on a school has happened several times in recent history and continues to plague our society. An army, at the time of a world war no less, launching a sophisticated and coordinated attack involving tens of thousands of military tacticians, soldiers, seamen, and pilots is less plausible.

    45. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by N1AK · · Score: 1

      So it would not be a criminal act to shoot at someone and miss? To attempt to rob someone but to flea instead when spotted?

      It takes a staggering degree of naivety to support such nonsense and the belief society could function around it.

    46. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Why is slapping someone a crime, but telling an angry mob that the resident of a certain house is a pedophile, leading to them burning the house down and killing him, fine because it's just speech.

      How many people do you think Stalin or Hitler killed with their own hands? Other than thought crimes, hate crimes, or word crimes exactly what crimes did they commit?

    47. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Why is slapping someone a crime, but telling an angry mob that the resident of a certain house is a pedophile, leading to them burning the house down and killing him, fine because it's just speech.

      I know this is hard to grasp for people like you, but there more choices than "make it criminal" and "completely ignore it" or even "celebrate it". For example, you can be subject to civil liability as part of your actions, even if the action wasn't criminal. If you don't understand the difference between civil liability and criminal liability, you should look it up; it's huge. Furthermore, there don't need to be laws proscribing your conduct in order for you to face civil liability.

      How many people do you think Stalin or Hitler killed with their own hands? Other than thought crimes, hate crimes, or word crimes exactly what crimes did they commit?

      Stalin and Hitler were guilty by our standards not because of their speech, but because of their official directives to subordinates in government, directives that were backed up by force. That is, they were guilty of giving orders, not merely of speaking.

    48. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      do you understand what a threat is?

      this must be the social disability speaking here, to not understand what a threat is

      are you autistic or do you have asperger's syndrome? honest, serious question

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    49. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      franklin's quote is ridiculously overused because security of course is a necessary thing in this world. it of course can go to far, but what amazes me are internet tough guys who think all prudent responsible reaction to threats is hysterical overreaction. these same internet tough guys will be going "the police heard the threats, why didn't they do anything!" because such losers don't argue form the position of right or wrong or logical coherence, just empty criticism without any intelligence or integrity

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    50. Re: i don't understand the premise of the post by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      why are you amazed and dismayed at people reacting to a threat?

      why aren't you amazed and dismayed at the loser douchebag making the threat?

      who needs to threaten people except a malicious person or a stupid and violent person?

      most of it is empty, yes, until one asshole delivers. so you have to take it seriously as no one socially normal or well-intentioned makes violent threats

      it is MEANT to cause fear

      that's the actual problem genius!

      that's how freedom is curtailed: by making you question your safety where you should feel secure

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    51. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by muridae · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand how the US system works. You might want to brush up on Article 3, and Marbury v. Madison. Now, if you don't like that the SCOTUS has review over even the Constitution, then you've had since 1803 to start an Amendment process to change that.

      Until then, shouting "fire" in a crowded place stays illegal until the Court's ruling is revised or their power is amended.

    52. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he fucking isn't, shitwipe. ALL speech is protected. Fucking all of it.
      IF your speech has DIRECT consequences you can be held liable for those consequences. You can NEVER be legally punished for the content of your speech, nor can you be legally prevented from saying whatever the hell you want.

      Nope.

    53. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      if you have knowledge of an attack, you tell everyone who is going to do it

      if you just tell of an attack coming, you're the one who is going to attack

      this is just basic social skills here

      On slashdot, the assumption is that no normal social rules apply on a computer, so basically you can do whatever you like with no comeback.

      Then someone tweets a "joke" about blowing up an airport and no one can believe that it's perceived as the same thing as making an anonymous phone cool doing the same.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    54. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by N1AK · · Score: 1

      To use your own phrase "I know this is hard to grasp for people like you" but orders are speech; thus to criminalise orders is to criminalise speech.

      If your flawed rant about civil justice had any validity, it would still fail to explain why harm caused by physical violence should be 'criminal' but harm caused by threats or verbal abuse should be covered by 'civil' law.

    55. Re:i don't understand the premise of the post by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      To use your own phrase "I know this is hard to grasp for people like you" but orders are speech; thus to criminalise orders is to criminalise speech.

      That's like saying that shooting someone is the same as twitching a finger, so making shooting someone illegal means making twitching a finger illegal.

      In reality, while orders may involve speech, it's not the speech that is being made illegal, it is the order. In the case of Stalin and Hitler, the orders for which they are considered guilty of mass murder were, in fact, even written and signed.

      If your flawed rant about civil justice had any validity, it would still fail to explain why harm caused by physical violence should be 'criminal' but harm caused by threats or verbal abuse should be covered by 'civil' law.

      Where did I say that harm caused by physical violence couldn't be handled by civil law? In fact, I have no strong opinion on that either way. All I pointed out is that when it comes to speech, we don't need to criminalize it to protect people from harm resulting from it.

      As for the second part of your statement, your premise is wrong: neither threats or "verbal abuse" cause harm by themselves.

  3. Well, what a fuckwad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope he'll experience a few 10" moments in the holding pen.

    1. Re: Well, what a fuckwad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody gets raped in holding you fucking retard. The cops are right there. That's prison your thinking of. They have guards but not right in front of each cell at all times like in holding.
      I suggest you watch the Boondocks cartoon cuz you clearly need some common sense with your comedy.

  4. Will I get arrested for posting in /.? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0

    I do not like NSA

    I do not like the corrupted US politicians

    And I do not like what the US government is doing to the citizens of the United States of America

    Will I get arrested for posting the above in /.?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re: Will I get arrested for posting in /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      no, dumbass. you did mot make a specific, credible threat. thats why the pearl harbor reference is stupid; its not a credible threat. however, a mass shooting is.

    2. Re:Will I get arrested for posting in /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not like NSA

      I do not like the corrupted US politicians

      And I do not like what the US government is doing to the citizens of the United States of America

      Will I get arrested for posting the above in /.?

      Nah. You'll have to say something like: "I hate the way the NSA operates. I'm going to do everything I can to take you down Rogers, take you down to China town and ruin your life."

      They'll get all butt hurt about disrespecting their director and decree your words to be actions resulting in your conviction of several violent crimes. To insure you're in prison the rest of your life, you'll be charged and convicted of the same crime eight times, the 8 felonies being the same as the others, only to be worded differently. They'll also take everything you and your family owns because this stuff was used in conjunction of your felonies to assist you while you were being violent. It'll be converted into cash to help finance their employees life styles.

    3. Re:Will I get arrested for posting in /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not like NSA

      I do not like the corrupted US politicians

      And I do not like what the US government is doing to the citizens of the United States of America

      Will I get arrested for posting the above in /.?

      You forgot the obligatory $%##^%#$^%#%#%^ CARRIER LOST

    4. Re: Will I get arrested for posting in /.? by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      no, dumbass. you did mot make a specific, credible threat. thats why the pearl harbor reference is stupid; its not a credible threat. however, a mass shooting is.

      What I want to know is: when did any random loser posting anonymous 60-character messages become a "credible" threat? This seems like the 21st century version of pulling the fire alarm to get out of an exam.

    5. Re: Will I get arrested for posting in /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pulling the fire alarm can still be done anonymously. Posting on Yik Yak is now proven to not be anonymous.

  5. May the Fourth be with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Always

  6. SubjectsSuck by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article (and Slashdot summary) conveniently ignore that the post is pretty damn obviously referring to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting on 16 Apr 2007. That's about as clear as an anonymous threat gets.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    1. Re:SubjectsSuck by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      Your example isn't a good one, because there's no credible reason for anyone to believe that an anonymous Slashdot poster is going to be able to launch an air attack on US military base. A threat by a lone individual to carry out a mass murder, on the other hand, is perfectly believable, because they happen with some frequency.

      And making threats is not protected free speech, so it has no implications in that regard. Calling this a "perceived" threat is disingenuous on your part -- it's a real threat, plain and simple, whether or not he intended to act on it.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:SubjectsSuck by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      And the poster was also Korean, as was the original V. Tech shooter. Yup, looks like something that should be taken seriously.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:SubjectsSuck by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      I would say if you make a threat, which he did, and local law enforcement is forced to determine whether it is credible or not, you have already stepped outside of the bounds of free speech. Free speech most assuredly does not include threats.

    4. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A threat by a lone individual to commit a mass murder, by alluding a mass murder that happened on the same campus that he attends. The Pearl Harbor comparison is patently ridiculous. I know some Slashdotters live in some sort of magical world, but in this world yelling "I'm going to murder the lot of you" in a crowded theater is enough to warrant action.

    5. Re:SubjectsSuck by ememisya · · Score: 0

      Somebody mod this guy up lol

    6. Re:SubjectsSuck by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Was it fairly clear that the 12/7 post I made referred to Pearl Harbor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... a day which will live in infamy? How soon is too soon to get arrested for an anonymous post? What does that mean for free speech online, even when the local law enforcement really thought it to be a non credible threat.

      Your post suggested that 12/7 could mean anything and associating it with Pearl Harbor was a stretch on the part of the reader.

      By contrast the mention of a 4.16 moment to the Virginia tech community is intentional and the association obvious.

      Also no one thinks that an anonymous poster is going to reproduce Pearl Harbor by carrying out an air raid on a military base. But an anonymous poster can carry out a school shooting.

      It's nothing to do with being "too soon" or "free speech", it's a credible threat to carry out mass murder.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:SubjectsSuck by Arakageeta · · Score: 1

      Have you spent any time in Blacksburg? It's a small town. They still remember. This student who had been there for nearly four years knew exactly what he was doing.

    8. Re:SubjectsSuck by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Pretend it's not *you* saying that another Pearl Harbor will happen tomorrow, but a representative of, say, the Chinese government. While visiting Hawaii. Maybe somebody in the government might want to interrogate you to prevent imminent massive loss of life.

    9. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, Yik Yak is a local thing... if you posted something like that on a street sign in Hawaii in December, you'd get a different response.

    10. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you get a refund for your education.

    11. Re:SubjectsSuck by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Cops investigating speech (unobtrusively) isn't the same as making something illegal. A threat by itself shouldn't be illegal, but it may subject you to scrutiny.

    12. Re:SubjectsSuck by N1AK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A threat by itself shouldn't be illegal, but it may subject you to scrutiny.

      Yes it should, with certain limitations. If making threats was always entirely legal, then it would be trivial for an individual, or small group, to shut down things like air travel nationwide, the school network of a major city indefinitely etc. For example, I could say that I have planted a timed release device containing a neurotoxin in a water source somewhere in New York state. I could even drive around near various locations, park up, leave some weird equipment around etc to ensure it is a credible enough threat (perhaps even plan to get caught looking like I was about to break into a site). I could refuse to cooperate with the investigation. How long would it take to ensure that I hadn't done it, how much would it cost, and how many thousands of peoples would be inconvenienced by it? Then after it all, when they finally feel confident in saying that I hadn't actually done it, there's no consequences what so ever for me.

    13. Re: SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And antagonize China? Are you on drugs? Even a couple of millions citizens aren't worth it.

    14. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making “true threats” is not protected by the First Amendment. And ironically enough, whether or not something is a “true threat” might very well depend solely on how it is perceived: SCOTUS is due to decide Elonis v. United States, which will probably clarify whether a statement has to be intended as a threat to classify as a true threat. However, regardless of the outcome in that case, a statement has to be objectively threatening in order to classify as a true threat and that depends on how an average reasonable person would perceive the statement.

    15. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, you are stupid. Stop trying to protect free speech; leave it to people who aren't blithering morons, because you're doing more harm than good.

    16. Re:SubjectsSuck by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Because an individual can't perpetrate an act anywhere near the scale of Pearl Harbor. The best they could do is another 9/11. Now, if you said someone near DC posted threatening another 6/28 (let's see if you can figure that one out), then maybe your analogy would be a little better.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    17. Re:SubjectsSuck by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      YikYak is a good example of why we can't have nice things. It could be really cool but for the most part it is full of idiots.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:SubjectsSuck by mlts · · Score: 1

      Yik Yak isn't that bad for the most part. A lot of it is people asking for kik IDs and wanting a good time, there are a few tired witticisms posted every so often, a few things about human sexuality popping up quite often...

      In general, if one plays/or ever played WoW, it is like Barrens chat, or present-day General/Trade in the garrison.

      Of course, you get the people who say something stupid, but the reporting mechanism takes care of that pretty quickly.

    19. Re:SubjectsSuck by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      If making threats was always entirely legal, then it would be trivial for an individual, or small group, to shut down things like air travel nationwide, the school network of a major city indefinitely etc. For example, I could say that I have planted a timed release device containing a neurotoxin in a water source somewhere in New York state.

      Well, hey, if making something illegal keeps it from happening, then why do you worry about someone planting poison anywhere? It's illegal, so it won't happen!

      But seriously, the real terrorists in that case are the people "shutting down things" for no reason, because that is what makes the threat effective. When a terrorist says "I will do _ to hurt people, so you better turn your lives upside down if you don't want to get killed." the correct response is "Where is the proof?"

      If we follow your logic to its conclusion, then free speech ceases to exist, because by the same logic, you can reason that speech that makes you uncomfortable infringes on your liberties and should be banned.

    20. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, this dude moon looks a lot like cho

    21. Re:SubjectsSuck by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      YikYak is a good example of why we can't have nice things.

      No, the reason we can't have nice things is because idiots are running the place, because they outnumber the people with brains. People who vote Party Lines are idiots.There are 20-30% on each side that don't even bother to know anything, they just vote for (D) or (R) reflexively. BTY, that is a majority of the people are too stupid to actually pay attention.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    22. Re:SubjectsSuck by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Threats are the "assault" component of "assault and battery."

    23. Re:SubjectsSuck by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Way to entirely miss the point, and go off on a retarded straw-man tangent.

      it is evident to anyone with enough brain cells that they might occasionally message each other that criminalizing, for example, making claims that you have planted a bomb in a school isn't asking people to turn their life upside down.

      When the IRA used to phone bomb warnings through to the British police, if the British police had used your idiotic logic and asked for proof before acting instead of evacuating the area then hundreds of people would have died.

    24. Re:SubjectsSuck by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      When the IRA used to phone bomb warnings through to the British police, if the British police had used your idiotic logic and asked for proof before acting instead of evacuating the area then hundreds of people would have died.

      In fact, the British police routinely asked for proof and established code words for that purpose. Perhaps you are too young or too ignorant to remember.

      it is evident to anyone with enough brain cells that they might occasionally message each other that criminalizing, for example, making claims that you have planted a bomb in a school isn't asking people to turn their life upside down.

      And how does "criminalizing" this help? Do you seriously think people who phone in anonymous bomb threats give a f*ck whether it's criminal or not? Furthermore, the problem with criminalization is not the effect it has on people who make bomb threats (who mostly don't care), but with the risk of arbitrary enforcement against innocent people, people who made a joke that was misunderstood, people who mistyped something, or sent it to the wrong recipient, or whatever.

      Way to entirely miss the point, and go off on a retarded straw-man tangent.

      And by that you're talking about yourself, of course.

    25. Re:SubjectsSuck by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And making threats is not protected free speech, so it has no implications in that regard. Calling this a "perceived" threat is disingenuous on your part -- it's a real threat, plain and simple, whether or not he intended to act on it.

      Don't forget that a lot of the more extreme right wingers, sorry libertarians, on slashdot have argued that you shouldn't have laws to prevent people (for example) hiring a hitman to murder someone, but should only be able to prosecute the hitman when he has actually killed his victim.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re:SubjectsSuck by ememisya · · Score: 1

      To me, it wasn't a threat (law enforcement thought the same), it's near finals week, and it's an "anonymous" post. Also 4.16 doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. 20-30 years from now, if anybody reads the same post, the feeling will be out of it, then you'll see why this arrest for subjective perception is dangerous. Lets hope it doesn't become a conviction, the pubic already assumes arrest means guilty.

  7. Another 5-4 is about to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just a warning

    1. Re:Another 5-4 is about to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the day my Grandmother's cat died, and you dare threaten to kill her current cat? You insensitive clod.

  8. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LEO appears to be paying attention, finally. Too bad it takes multiple cases of gunman slaughtering people in our gun-free zones before they set aside their various racial/ethnic/religious grievance sensitivities and grab up these whack jobs.

    Texas showed us how it's done tonight. Stick their grievances in their face and when they show up to squabble about it cut them down in the street.

    That's how you stop this shit.

  9. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

    Yeah, it seems a little too specific to me. It's akin to saying "There's going to be another Columbine" when you're actually at or very near to Columbine High School. Also, it's important to note that Yik Yak works in terms of vicinity - this is someone in the local area of the college, not halfway around the globe.

    Second, nobody is going to see Pearl Harbor references in the same way, because that's about something entirely different. Probably the only place you'll hear Pearl Harbor references these days is with "Cyber" in front of it, coming from someone trying to turn up the FUD in congressional hearings.

  10. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't you figured it out yet, here on /. it's not a crime if you use a computer.

  11. What is It? by lloy0076 · · Score: 1

    Would someone be able to explain the significance of those numbers (the ones that will get me arrested if I write them in this comment) because I seriously don't get it? Will we start arresting children learning how to count next...

    1. Re:What is It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The VA Tech shooting happened on 4/16/07. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...

    2. Re:What is It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      arresting children learning how to count next

      So finding yourself ignorant of the significance of 4/16 you immediately assume this is some completely unjustified overreach of power maddened authority out to inflict abuse on a hapless victim, and well on their way to tormenting anyone using arabic numerals.

      Fuck you. Fuck you and your ugly little malcontent soul.

    3. Re:What is It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, finding yourself ignorant of the facts that
      a) Not everyone in the world remembers the date of every massacre ever to take place
      b) Not everyone in the world lists the month first thus '4/16' is at first a little confusing

      you immediately assume this is some completely unjustified question from an AC out to inflict abuse on a hapless victim, and well on their way to tormenting anyone using arabic numerals..

    4. Re:What is It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not everyone in the world lists the month first thus '4/16' is at first a little confusing

      Confusing how? They're going to think it was the fourth day of the sixteenth month? What planet are you from?

    5. Re:What is It? by lloy0076 · · Score: 1

      Actually I originally thought it had something to do with various Biblical verses some of which could, tenuously, be touted as a threat.

    6. Re:What is It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I originally thought it had something to do with various Biblical verses some of which could, tenuously, be touted as a threat.

      Well, I had never heard of this event so I googled those numbers and all I got was biblical verses as you thought. Maybe a little more info in the summary would be good.

    7. Re:What is It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. I saw '4.16' in the summary and thought it was a math reference.

      "Four point one six"

    8. Re:What is It? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      The VA Tech shooting happened on 4/16/07. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...

      1907 is a long time ago.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:What is It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are all fucking idiots
      4/16 = 1/4

    10. Re:What is It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't you have this 420 moments?
      I thought he talks about smoking pot.

    11. Re:What is It? by rhazz · · Score: 1

      More than 2,815 fortnights ago, in fact.

  12. Yik yack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is that? The latest greatest messenger that does the exact same thing as all its predecessors 20+ years prior?

  13. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by ememisya · · Score: 0

    Do not let fear overreach your reason. That's actually when the terrorists win so to say :) I personally asked a few students about it in a coffee shop, none of them had any clue as to what 4/16 was, they asked me if that's a new convenience store like 7/11. Which is my point in reference to 12/7, Pearl Harbor, an event which lead to the use of a nuclear bomb, and no longer means much to your average person. Lets not forget the educational life of a student is in ruins here now.

  14. taste the heat and the meat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if TPTB ever watch these sites:

    infowars
    david icke forums
    schneier's blog+comments
    godlikeproductions
    lunaticoutpost

    some serious nutcases as well as intelligent lifeforms mixed together at those locations, I tell you what.

  15. 4.16 moments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's when the penalties on my unpaid income taxes start racking up.

    Yeah, reminding me of that is definitely scares me.

    1. Re:4.16 moments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's when the penalties on my unpaid income taxes start racking up.

      Yeah, reminding me of that is definitely scares me.

      Good Citizen. Pay your taxes. By the way have you stopped beating your daughter and sodomising your son yet?

  16. OT: Texas shooting Re:Good by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Stick their grievances in their face and when they show up to squabble about it cut them down in the street.

    Showing up to shoot an unarmed-but-uniformed school police officer is hardly "showing up to squabble about it."

    Good news: Media reports that the unarmed school police officer that one (or both?) of the gunmen shot has been released from the hospital.

    "Don't mess with Texas" isn't just an anti-litter slogan.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:OT: Texas shooting Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good news

      A LEO surviving a shooting isn't good news among these malcontent neckbeards.

    2. Re: OT: Texas shooting Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let those malcontent losers vent their frustration on the Internet. It will be so much easier to identify and round them up.

  17. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone is for free speech until they're offended. Then it's threatening, hate speech, or harassment and needs to be censored.

  18. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I asked real students on campus"

    So what did you ask the fake students on campus?

    *slowly removes sunglasses*

  19. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah context is important. Sending this message to random strangers, which is what YikYak generally does as I understand it, in a 10 mile radius of Virgina Tech without additional information comes across as a threat to me.

  20. Here's the real crime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't the student have been arrested simply for using an app called "Yik Yak"?

  21. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly Moon, the perp, knew the significance of 4/16. That's what matters. Who cares how ignorant average Virginia Tech kids are?

  22. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Headw1nd · · Score: 2

    Are you, or the people you asked, from Virginia Tech or the Blacksburg area? Maybe that's why they don't know. At Virginia Tech, they would almost certainly know about it, seeing as how there is a yearly memorial service that was all of three weeks ago. Context matters. Let's say your mother was named Mrs. Ememisya If someone sent me a message with "Mrs. Ememisya is going to die tonight" it wouldn't mean jack shit to me, I don't know who they're talking about. To you it would rightfully be perceived as a threat.

  23. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by ememisya · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yes. I attend Virginia Tech, I asked real students who had no idea what 4/16 was or means.

  24. Re:Illegal speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure harassment by computer needs to be a thing. Pretty sure this kind of thing was already covered in the existing body of law regarding threats. That's what really annoys me about this.

  25. Serpents Suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "V" belongs to the lizards. So does the "Don't tread on me" with a serpent on a flag. DTOM is one of the most "illuminated" signs I've seen, and I don't mean in a good way. The people who serve the serpents/lizards stand up for the flag, others in ignorance, and defenders of the lizard faith will say NO U WRONG! It means .......

    just as the peace sign and vulcan signs are of serpent origin.

    look how many asian nations parade and hold dear to images and dances featuring dragons (serpents), lizard like creatures many with wings, and other demonic trash.

  26. Plausible versus implausible threats by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

    The article's assumption that the key difference between a Dec 7 and Apr 28 threat is passage of time is simply wrong. Another Virginia Tech shooting is plausible. A single mentally disturbed individual is quite capable of carrying it out. It is rather unlikely that any anonymous poster has a bunch of aircraft carriers handy to launch a new attack on Pearl Harbor.

    1. Re: Plausible versus implausible threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3/26, mass suicide. Credible yet?

    2. Re:Plausible versus implausible threats by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Is there a day of the year when something bad never happened in the past? I'd like a list of safe dates to refer to.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:Plausible versus implausible threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PROTIP: Don't go to a community where a massacre happened less than a decade ago and say 'There's going to be another $date_of_massacre again soon' and you should be fine. I mean, it won't solve you being a disingenuous twat, but yes you won't be arrested for making threats.

    4. Re:Plausible versus implausible threats by jittles · · Score: 1

      It is rather unlikely that any anonymous poster has a bunch of aircraft carriers handy to launch a new attack on Pearl Harbor.

      Says YOU! Hasbro has been selling me aircraft carriers for dozens of years!! On the weekends I can go to a yard sale and pick up an entire armada.

  27. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by thechemic · · Score: 1

    You definitely missed something. If he has knowledge that somebody else is going to implement another 4:16 moment, then clearly he is a hero attempting to warn society. His comment, “Another 4.16 moment is going to happen tomorrow. Just a warning (sic).” does not in any way convey that he himself would implement another 4:16 moment.

    --
    Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
  28. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey there, mister!

    I perceive slowly removing sunglasses as intimidating!

  29. He should be arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for putting a "sic" where none was needed, warranted, or made the slightest bit of sense. He should be flogged and have lemon juice poured over him. Sic that , motherfucker.

  30. 12/7 by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know a lot more about WW2 than probably 98% of Americans, and "12/7" doesn't immediately mean Pearl Harbor to me. "December 7" does, of course. But 12/7 wasn't picked symbolically for a number to impact the psyche like 9/11, and that's not how people usually referred to it.

    These threats shouldn't result in punishment more serious than flunking a semester anyway--they should result in securing the building and having the kid checked out for psych problems unless there is evidence of attempting to illegally purchase firearms, etc... A threat isn't the thing itself.

    1. Re:12/7 by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      My thought too. Probably that's because until fairly recently, people used the name of the month, the day and (sometimes) the specific year to refer to such things. As examples, who can tell me what 6/4/1942 and 6/6/1944 represent without looking them up?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:12/7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12/7 was the day before my ex-wife's birthday and it frequently meant panic as I had forgotten to plan something for her

    3. Re:12/7 by Calydor · · Score: 2

      I like how we get the explanation of why she's now your EX wife in this short story. ;-)

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:12/7 by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      who can tell me what 6/4/1942 and 6/6/1944 represent without looking them up?

      Yes, to the latter. No to the former because it is in US notation, putting the month before the day before the year. Although in the UK, I would possible say "June the fourth", I am more likely to day "The fourth of June" [see note below], I find it particularly illogical when in numeric notation to have an inconsistent order of the magnitudes - your month/day/year.

      Note : For example, another famous sea battle in 1794, the first in the Napoleonic Wars, is known by the British (but surely not by the French) as "The Glorious First of June".

    5. Re:12/7 by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Midway and D-Day? Assuming US notation, of course....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:12/7 by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Without googling I'm sure one of the two is the D-Day landings.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    7. Re:12/7 by rhazz · · Score: 1

      It's been over 60 years since pearl harbour. When it's been 60 years since 9/11 most people outside of New York probably won't immediately know it either.

    8. Re:12/7 by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      All I will say about that first battle is that to the Americans, at least, it was an incredible victory.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    9. Re:12/7 by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Very good! Was this from memory, or did you have to look either of them up?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    10. Re:12/7 by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      From memory.

      Of course, my mnemonic for D-Day is "Twas the Dark of the Moon on the sixth of June in a Kenworth hauling logs..."

      As to Midway, once upon a time, I read the History of the US Navy in WW2 (all fourteen volumes). One of the things mentioned there is that Yamamoto predicted that Japan would run amok in the Pacific for six months after Pearl Harbor...which was almost exactly the length of time from Pearl Harbor to Midway (off by only three days).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:12/7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "never" don't you understand!?!?!? NEVER FORGET

  31. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. I attend Virginia Tech, I asked real students who had no idea what 4/16 was or means.

    Did these students attend Virginia Tech, or did they attend a nearby kindergarten?

  32. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Fwipp · · Score: 2

    I personally asked a few students about it in a coffee shop, none of them had any clue as to what 4/16 was, they asked me if that's a new convenience store like 7/11.

    This definitely happened.

  33. Another DOOM playing retard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any bets on this clown being another DOOM player like some of the other nutters?

  34. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe the guy was just talking about another memorial event.

  35. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will show my support for your right to not be intimidated by slow moving sunglasses with some jazz hands. \O/

  36. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's funny, because:

    1) Yik Yak claims to "allow users to view other Yaks posted within a 10 mile radius" - i.e., it's location aware;
    2) This story happened in Virginia, meaning somebody presumably posted the message in the Virginia Tech area;
    3) searching for "4/16 events" on Google brings me to this page:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    Searching that page for "Virginia" shows me that:
    1) In 1862, there was a Civil War battle at Lee's Mill, Virginia;
    2) In 2007, there was a massacre on the Virginia Tech campus, where a deranged gunman executed 32 people, injured 17, and then committed suicide;
    3) In 1923, Arch Moore, former governor of West Virginia, died;
    4) In 2007, "the people of the Virginia Tech Shooting" died;

    I know you're trying to be funny, but given the nature of the app in question, and given the nature of the post... it's pretty clear that nobody was threatening to stage a Civil War battle, or predicting the death of a former governor of West Virginia; It's very clear that the reference was to the VA Tech massacre, and was made *in close proximity TO the site of that massacre,* as well.

    Fuck off.

  37. THREATS and WARNINGS by gavron · · Score: 0

    I've read the previous posters' comments, and I understand all about the freedom of speech, the misunderstood Oliver Wendell Holmes quote about "fire in a crowded theater", and that "speech by computer" shouldn't equal a crime (right, it shouldn't).

    HOWEVER, in all these great discussions it seems everyone is accepting and begging the question that the original comment about there being a repetition of XX/YY is a THREAT.

    Sorry guys and gals, that's an anonymous TIP, a WARNING, a PREDICTION, the kind of thing that kindly old lady on the 900 number tells you, something your mother says if you touch a hot stove, etc. Call it what you will, but it's not a threat.

    A threat requires an INTENTION to INFLICT or CAUSE HARM. It may even suggest that the person making the threat will be the one doing it. Google threat or here's an easy definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

    Fundamentally this guy said something on the Internet. He has now been excoriated as "an idiot" "said stupid things" "ha ha he'll get ***ed in the holding cell" "serves him right for making a threat."

    It's only a matter of time before the LEOs say "You can't say those things and live."

    Yes. In the United States we can.

    I'm disappointed /. readers decided to punish the victim and accept the TSA-airport-attitude that "if you say bomb then we'll arrest you right then and there" and then when a passenger does say "bomb" we call him a stupid idiot. Stupid is the idiot that accepts this as his way of life and defends this insane idea that somehow making speech unlawful is either Constitutionally ok, or even helps our security [theater] at all.

    Cheers guys and gals,

    E

    1. Re:THREATS and WARNINGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah? Well.. Nice restaurant you got here. Hate to see anything bad happen to it.

    2. Re:THREATS and WARNINGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok so if it was a tip, warning, or prediction of something terrible happening on a specific date he should obviously be able to tell the cops what terrible thing he was warning people about and clear the whole thing up.

    3. Re:THREATS and WARNINGS by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Calling in a bomb threat has always been a crime, not a prank. I see three possible conditions here:

      1. He heard of a plot for a mass murder on the Virginia Tech campus and warned the community via Yik Yak
      2. He was personally threatening to carry out a mass murder on the Virginia Tech campus and decided to go super villain style and announce it
      3. Neither 1 or 2, He was pranking a mass murder threat on the Virginia Tech campus

      If it's (1), then he's free and clear once he comes clean about all he knows of the plot for mass murder and there is credible evidence to show that such an event was immanent. If it's (2) then he's likely facing free room and board with roomates not of his choosing and very little outdoor time for the foreseeable future. If it's (3) it would fall under threats in the Virginia statutes, and is a class 6 Felony. Note that the law does not distinguish between an empty threat and a viable threat; when it is in writing (including digital communications) it meets the test of the law.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:THREATS and WARNINGS by gavron · · Score: 1

      1. He has no obligation to "come free and clear". That's just something you made up, and something LEOs wish, but not a requirement under US law.
      2. If he was "personally threatening" then he would have made a threat.

      I'm sure it will come out that this guy WAS pranking... seeing as he offered no specifics to make either a *usable* warning or a *credible* threat.

      That doesn't change everyone bending over to pretend this is a crime; that we can't say "bomb" in an airport; and that we must be otherwise conditioned not to say "4/16" in Virginia. (or "9/11" anywhere even though that's what you dial in an emergency and we have to tell the children that's what to dial. Think of the children.)

      I can't imagine how horrible it must be for people who's birthday is April 16th and who live in Virginia to ever discuss their upcoming party. "4/16 is going to be a blast!"

      E

    5. Re:THREATS and WARNINGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he was a young man. If a woman said it, or someone older, then it would be taken differently.

    6. Re:THREATS and WARNINGS by MitchDev · · Score: 0

      America is a failed experiment that is just swirling the drain right now until the rich can completely revoke the Constitution and restore the plutocracy...

  38. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by meerling · · Score: 1

    South Korean ferry sinking last year? (16 may 2014)

  39. Better yet: Another 5/5 is about to happen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI: 5/4 is "Cinco de Mayo Eve."

    Arriba, Arriba! Andale, Andale! (Local translation: "Let's go get drunk.")

    1. Re:Better yet: Another 5/5 is about to happen! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It's Cinco de Quatro, dumbass.

    2. Re:Better yet: Another 5/5 is about to happen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Cinco de Quatro, dumbass.

      It's Stinko de Macho, dumbass. Ftfy.

  40. Insufficient Richard McBeef by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How could they take this threat seriously without Richard McBeef?

  41. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I personally asked a few students about it in a coffee shop, none of them had any clue as to what 4/16 was, they asked me if that's a new convenience store like 7/11.

    I'm sure they did. I bet that happened exactly like that.

    But seriously, let's assume that happened. Do you know how Yik Yak works? It's location-based / location-aware, so it only shows you messages within a 10 mile radius of your location (at least by default). So, what we have is a person who, presumably, lives in/around the VA Tech area, posting an "ominous" message that strongly implies there's going to be a repeat of a bloody massacre that happened 8 short years ago on the VA Tech campus - 32 dead, 17 injured.

    Is the fact that some VA Tech students are ignorant of recent history an immediate or even good reason to dismiss that message? I'd certainly say no. Given the location, timing, and content of the message, is it threatening? Well, I'd say so, but it appears you'd disagree. In cases like this, we generally ask a judge and jury to interpret the law, and this is exactly what's happening now: he's been arrested, and charged, and will face a trial where it will be determined by a jury of his peers whether or not he violated the law. Sounds like due process is working fine here.

    Now, as far as your Pearl Harbor question, let's imagine that you went and made a Yik Yak post about "another Dec 7" from an IP address in Honolulu. Having spent some time in Honolulu, I can assure you that people are not going to say, "12/7 - what's that, a convenience store like 7/11?" The folks in Honolulu know, and remember, Dec 7. Hard to not remember it when there are still rusted hulks of battleships sitting in very plain sight under a few inches of water on Battleship Row. So if you posted that same message in Honolulu, yes, I'd expect military authorities to spend at least a few minutes looking at the source and nature of the message to determine if there was an actual threat. Of course, given that you don't exactly have a fully armed Japanese carrier group stationed in the ocean off Hawaii, it'd be hard for you to replicate 12/7... so they could discount that element of the threat pretty easily. However, even with that, it would be perfectly within the bounds of believability that they'd investigate.

    The idea that somebody could easily replicate the VA Tech shootings is much more believable: one lunatic with a couple guns did it 8 years ago, he didn't need an aircraft carrier. The threat is therefore much more plausible, and merits attention, especially when made specifically near VA Tech, referencing an event that actually directly (and deeply) affected VA Tech.

    Your entire premise is incredibly fucked up. You seem to think that making threats should somehow be "okay, because - the Internet!" and I'm seriously struggling to take you seriously.

    Which is my point in reference to 12/7, Pearl Harbor, an event which lead to the use of a nuclear bomb, and no longer means much to your average person. Lets not forget the educational life of a student is in ruins here now.

  42. Law enforcement doing what they should do by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

    What a bizarre summary, with all the talk about Pearl Harbour and how the Virginia Tech shooting date has greater significance locally than naturally.

    The fact is that this was a clearly-made threat, whether genuine or not. Law enforcement took appropriate steps to investigate. It's not even an IT issue, just because someone used their phone (?) to post the threat on a public forum, or whatever you want to call Yik Yak.

    1. Re:Law enforcement doing what they should do by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

      *nationally

    2. Re:Law enforcement doing what they should do by gavron · · Score: 0

      "this was a clearly-made threat" That's what law-enforcement says.

      A plain-English reading makes it out to be a warning or a tip - not a threat.

      E

    3. Re:Law enforcement doing what they should do by roninmagus · · Score: 1

      It does read as a tip or warning until you apply context; If he had inside information about a pending attack and wanted to thwart it, it's more likely he would have been alerting authorities directly.

      Rather, he chose to tell the public at large in an ambiguous way using a public channel. Doing so immediately put the suspicion on him directly. And rightly so.

      Even if he was "tipping" people in on an attack, his method and words of doing so makes him a casual observer when the attack does go down, amused with an "I told you so" smirk. That makes him an accessory.

    4. Re:Law enforcement doing what they should do by muridae · · Score: 1

      See, I think the part that everyone is missing is that by posting this on April 28th, he wasn't possibly referring to the moment of silence or the traffic that the memorial gets. And there is the context, YikYak is meant to be local, so this statement was not meant to be read by people outside the Blacksburg area. And to the staff. faculty, and students-turned-townies, this read like a threat.

      So the cops investigated. They warned the campus, and the student turned himself in.

    5. Re:Law enforcement doing what they should do by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "this was a clearly-made threat" That's what law-enforcement says.

      A plain-English reading makes it out to be a warning or a tip - not a threat.

      E

      The curse of geek literalness strikes again.

      If you have information about someone seriously planning a shooting or bombing, you should fucking tell the police directly, not post a message on an obscure children's messaging service.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  43. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

    Could have been just be a prediction rather than a threat. There are plenty of "warnings" that there might be "another 9/11" every year just before 9/11, from journalists.

  44. Pulitzer Prize??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's threatening about not awarding a Pulitzer Prize?

  45. so much for ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it being anonymous.

  46. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    South Korean ferry sinking last year? (16 may 2014)

    That would be 16/05/2014 oe 05/16/2014 depending on how Americans (US persons) write dates. I never know what date (mm/dd or dd/mm) is meant when the day and month are in the range of 01 to 12 when I read dates written by Americans. Get with the programme and standardise on either dd/mm/yyyy or yyyy/mm/dd.

    April is the fourth month. May is the fifth month.

  47. Move over swatting, here comes Yik Yakking by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    If the police are actually responding to crap on Yik Yak, it won't be long before someone gets their jollies sending the police on wild goose chases. Of course, it isn't like it's easy to pick up a cheap burner phone, hop on an unsecured WiFi network and fake the phone's location. Whoops.

    "Tomorrow at noon this place burns to the ground. I'll be driving a hot pink Tesla Model S, come at me, pigs."

    Amusement worthy of 4chan ensues.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  48. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Throw the whole book at him. The sooner people learn that words have consequences, the sooner they will learn to shut up. This "freedom of speech" madness must end.

  49. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by thaylin · · Score: 1

    Because if they did not feel harassed then he did not harass them.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  50. Evolution at work by gweihir · · Score: 1

    While this sounds like panicked overreaction to me, at least the person arrested is obviously a moron and making reproduction more difficult for him is a good thing.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  51. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few years ago I did some work in Canton Ohio and decided to go visit the Kent State memorial - I am in my 50s and recall it well.
    When I got to the VERY PARKING lot next to the memorial and asked students about something less then 100m away ... they were clueless.

  52. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing in the first 3 pages of result (I didn't bother looking further) takes me to the page you claim to have found with that search. I know you're trying to be serious, but given the nature of the post (a simple post without any context to whether it was a violent threat or a comment about the great canteen cheese shortage of 2015) means that you can interpret it any way you really like. Just because *you* see a threat there doesn't mean there is one. If this is what the "land of the free" has come to I suggest it may be time for a new tagline.

  53. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Remember Google filters the search results and displays the ones their algorithms deem most likely to render advertising revenue, which varies between different users.

  54. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    You don't understand how language works, do you.

    It's human nature to use labels to refer to significant things. Eliminating the use of 9/11 as a reference to that event would just lead to everyone referring to as WTC or something else similarly short.

    The more unique the label is, however, the longer it will hold the meaning it's given. Do a search for WTC and almost every link points to information about the terrorist attacks on the WTC. Do a search for 4/20, on the other hand, and you'll get a ton of stuff about marijuana and virtually nothing mentioning the Columbine shootings which happened on April 20th.

    You want people to stop being afraid? Demanding that they use uniquely memorable names for tragedies is an ass-backwards way to go about it. Let them use generic labels for things so that they don't stand out and can be forgotten over time.

  55. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    Which is my point in reference to 12/7, Pearl Harbor, an event which lead to the use of a nuclear bomb

    Saying that Pearl Harbor led to the use of the Bomb is a bit...overstated.

    The US was preparing to enter WW2 well before Pearl Harbor. And the reason the Bomb was dropped in Japan (as opposed to on Berlin) is that the Germans surrendered before the Bomb was finished.

    Even without Pearl Harbor, if Hitler had been loony enough to declare war on us (he did, by the way - he was hoping Japan would attack the USSR if he "helped them" by declaring war on the USA. Alas for him, the Japanese weren't as stupid as he was) without the attack by Japan, we'd have nuked Germany if the Germans had managed to hold out till late '45....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  56. Wrong example - Try 9/11 on a NYC local yik yak by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    If you posted "Another 9.11 is going to happen, just a warning" on September 10th in a New York area yak, do you think it would be taken seriously?
    better yet - how about "Another 4.15 is going to happen, just a warning" on the day before the Boston Marathon a couple weeks ago in a yak centered near the start or finish of the race - do you think it would have been taken seriously?

    Comparing a lone-gunman of a few years ago to an invasion by a hostile air force / navy from 3/4 century ago is very, very different.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  57. VA tech just kicked in yo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll be a new 13/1 tomorrow, mark my words!

    Or is it a 1/13? Bloody yanks, I can never tell

  58. But... they won. by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

    If they didn't win then every newspaper on the planet would be scrambling to print the pics from these events.

    --
    Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
  59. A more appropriate comparison would have been 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody associated with VT knows 4/16. It's something we'll never forget.

  60. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

    You would have to poll all of them to establish that.

  61. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    The problem is that, even if the students there at the time are gone and have been replaced by noobs who have no history, the staff and faculty were still there, still remember, and are in charge of the grinding the wheels of justice. People who put out stupid messages should remember that.

    --
    That is all.
  62. This is inappropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mods, you should delete this post. It is entirely insensitive to the Virginia Tech community and the tragedy that happened there.

  63. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Cycloid+Torus · · Score: 2

    Would it be a threat if this guy was into astrology - and was predicting a confluence of the planets?

    I agree that the context may lead to thinking the post is a threat, but that still does not make it one. Nor is the forum (distant and anonymous) one which would be expected to give the words impact (as yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater would).

    I do find most fascinating is that the 'threat' was identified - NSA must be watching. Maybe we are all missing something.

    --
    Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
  64. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by ememisya · · Score: 1

    Yes indeed. I don't think any person in their right minds believed this anonymous coward to be anything but credible.

  65. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why I searched using a US proxy and a cleaned browser history. Lots of US centric pages due to the date but no mention what-so-ever of that Wikipedia article. I suspect the poster found the page but was not quite honest about how they influenced the search.

  66. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    It may seem to you. I asked real students on campus, who had no idea what 4/16 was. Yet a student has lost their educational opportunities here, and likely life ruined.

    They didn't lose their educational opportunities, they did something incredibly stupid and yet serious and thus suffered the consequences. Just because many people did not know what 4/16 represented doesn't mean the PD were wrong to treat it as a real threat and for the student to be held responsible for his actions.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  67. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Shoten · · Score: 1

    It may seem to you. I asked real students on campus, who had no idea what 4/16 was. Yet a student has lost their educational opportunities here, and likely life ruined.

    I'm betting a lot of people don't know the date of the Boston Marathon bombing. But threats are meant for people who DO recognize the significance, and the people who watch for threats do know what these dates are. The key point here is: did what he post actually look like it might be a threat? I say yes, and the fact that the people you asked didn't know the date doesn't have any effect on the situation.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  68. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    It may seem to you. I asked real students on campus, who had no idea what 4/16 was. Yet a student has lost their educational opportunities here, and likely life ruined.

    Might be a good reason not to post threats, eh?

    Student was already stupid enough to think YikYak is actually anonymous, and stupid enough to think that in a place where there already was one massacre, that threats of another wouldn't be taken seriously.

    Also after a Penn State episode where a student made similar threats (and was likewise arrested) it would be really stupid to not believe that Yik Yak isn't watched closely.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  69. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or it could be a warning. What if I knew of something bad happening, but knew I couldn't talk to the authorities, say, because the Boogie Man will get me if I talk? How could I warn people in such a way that the Boogie Man doesn't get me, but that I still possibly save a few lives? Warn them anonymously in a locale-based service, perhaps.

    Good thing we put a stop to that.

    I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'd expect the police to show up in this type of situation. Probably a good thing, as much as I hate to admit it. Don't think he should necessarily be arrested though. But likely so.

  70. Maybe he meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another 4/20, but was too stoned to get the post correct.

  71. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    Yes. I attend Virginia Tech, I asked real students who had no idea what 4/16 was or means.

    Gar - this keeps being recycled as if it means something.

    Are you trying to say that if the kid actually did go on a shooting rampage - which indeed was what he was referring to - he'd ask students if they knew what 4/16 meant, and if they did, he'd shoot them?

    It doesn't matter if students knew what the date meant. The person issuing the threat did, and law enforcement did. And now the dipshit student knows what happens when you make a threat like that.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  72. Charges by Translation+Error · · Score: 1
    From another article:

    He is currently facing a Class 1 misdemeanor charge of harassment by computer, which carries with it up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

    I'm kind of surprised they aren't threatening him with much harsher penalties. Not that I think they should. I'm just surprised they aren't.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  73. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    It's got nothing to do with offence. Making credible threats is illegal, and for good reason. Making credible threats can have extremely negative consequences for the person or institution being threatened. Do they do nothing and take an unknown risk, which leaves them open to being blamed (and probably sued) if something does happen? Do they cancel their event, stay at home with a loaded gun and put their life on hold? Not to mention the stress which can affect their health.

    Defining what is credible is the tricky part. I'm not sure this is, but it's probably enough to warrant an investigation to see if the person had the means to carry out an attack. It's a difficult line to draw.

    On the other hand things that are clearly jokes, like the guy in the UK who was eventually cleared of posting a tweet joking about blowing up an airport if his flight was cancelled, should not be investigated or prosecuted. I'm sorry I can't give you the exact limit, but that's the nature of life. Speech is imprecise.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  74. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not let fear overreach your reason. That's actually when the terrorists win so to say :) I personally asked a few students about it in a coffee shop, none of them had any clue as to what 4/16 was, they asked me if that's a new convenience store like 7/11. Which is my point in reference to 12/7, Pearl Harbor, an event which lead to the use of a nuclear bomb, and no longer means much to your average person. Lets not forget the educational life of a student is in ruins here now.

    I think the average person could tell you that Pearl Harbor led to U.S. involvement in WW2.
    They might even "remember the Alamo" [although they almost certainly don't "remember Goliad"]

  75. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

    I doubt the other allies would have allowed Germany to be nuked. Too close to their own borders, unknown effects from the fallout. Japan was far enough away from anywhere that the US or its close allies cared about to use as a testing ground.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  76. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    There was no such ambiguity within the residents of Blacksburg. Most students currently at Tech were not students when the original shooting happened, or even know students who were here. But those of us who live here remember, and remember quite vividly. There was no question that this was related. Asking some kid who probably 12 when the shootings happened probably isn't going to get you much response.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  77. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    .

    Even without Pearl Harbor, if Hitler had been loony enough to declare war on us (he did, by the way - he was hoping Japan would attack the USSR if he "helped them" by declaring war on the USA. Alas for him, the Japanese weren't as stupid as he was) without the attack by Japan, we'd have nuked Germany if the Germans had managed to hold out till late '45....

    Oh boy - you are gonna get it now. Didn't you know that the US was the only one working on Nucs? and that it was our bloodthirsty nature that we were just itching to use them on Japan? No doubt we were hoping that Germany held out a little longer so we could use a couple on them too?

    All tongue in cheek of course. I'm always amazed the weird made up history that people can conjure, completely out of context. Japan of course was not the impetus to create the A-Bomb, it was Germany. And given their engineering prowess, we were very worried about them producing one, along with the ICBM that was in the works, if they beat us to the bomb, we were in trouble. Already the V2's were reduced to practice, and the planned A10 booster on an A9 Rocket would given them the reach. Hitler had a fantasy of nucing the Empire State building, it seems.

    Fortunately, they collapsed before that - and as a side note, the firestorm bombing we did was as devastating as nucs. It was very expensive and pretty difficult, but once the firestorm started, you were toast - so to speak.

    So after a long, expensive and casualty filled war, and the prospect of several more years, and projections of a million more Americans dead, using the nucs was not that outrageous a decision.

    And in maximum irony, nuc'ing probably saved several million more Japanese lives also, as the firestorming stopped.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  78. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    No, you'd only need to poll those that are active on Yip Yak not all students would fall into that category. Prior to this article I had never heard of it.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  79. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a 12/7 tomorrow..." is a false application of logic. Does this person have authority over an imperial navy? No. Does the yik-yak person go to school at VT. Yes!

  80. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    his point is that isn't not any more a threat than me saying I'm going to hunt down your family and rape all of them

    am I going to be arrested for saying that? No.

  81. Does anyone else... by MitchDev · · Score: 0

    ... when Free Speech actually meant something in this god-forsaken pit of a country?

    1. Re:Does anyone else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are limits to free speech, like the well-worn example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre. This is law enforcement doing its job and acting in the face of a credible threat. What would you have said if there was another shooting and it came out that law enforcement / the school administration had known about this post? I was a student then, and 4/16 is definitely seared in my brain, as it is everyone else who was there (and most of the faculty staff and some grad students are still there). In the wake of all of the pain and grief, the administration was dragged over the coals for not acting fast enough or not doing enough after the first students were shot. _Of course_, they are going to be very sensitive to threats of repeats.

  82. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How does one distinguish between credible and non-credible threats?

    How does one distinguish attempts at humor ("Hi Jack" in the airport) vs an actual threat (hijack at the airport) ?

    I'll tell you how. Hard work. You have to assume the worst, hope for the best and actually do your work and investigate it. I know, it is much easier to arrest the poor guy selling single cigarettes on the street than it is actually doing real important police work.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  83. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by tnk1 · · Score: 2

    Or Yik Yak cooperated with an investigation of a credible anonymous threat based on a message posted on their service.

  84. December 7th by operagost · · Score: 1

    No, I think posting that "another December 7th is going to happen tommorow" isn't much of a threat unless you have a carrier-based navy.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  85. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    am I going to be arrested for saying that? No.

    If my family was hunted down and raped 8 years ago, and you write a note saying "AC's family is going to get raped again on the 8th anniversary of their first rape," then yes, you might be communicating a threat and thus subject to arrest.

    You see, we rely on courts to make these findings of fact - and unless they arrest and try the person who made the statement to determine whether or not it was a credible and legitimate threat, then we'll never *know* if it was indeed a threat or a joke.

    Seriously - do you even due process? He posted a threatening message; authorities felt it was threatening enough to ask police to look into it; they found out who posted it, and are now they've arrested him, are charging him with what they believe was a crime, and his trial will determine whether or not he's in violation of the law. This is "the world functioning as it ought to."

  86. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations, you're an idiot.

  87. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly Moon, the perp, knew the significance of 4/16. That's what matters.

    So basically, you support convicting people based on "thought crimes". Good to know.

  88. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If he has knowledge of an imminent attack he should talk to law enforcement not make a post on an anonymous message system.

  89. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by sexconker · · Score: 1

    am I going to be arrested for saying that? No.

    If my family was hunted down and raped 8 years ago, and you write a note saying "AC's family is going to get raped again on the 8th anniversary of their first rape," then yes, you might be communicating a threat and thus subject to arrest.

    You see, we rely on courts to make these findings of fact - and unless they arrest and try the person who made the statement to determine whether or not it was a credible and legitimate threat, then we'll never *know* if it was indeed a threat or a joke.

    Seriously - do you even due process? He posted a threatening message; authorities felt it was threatening enough to ask police to look into it; they found out who posted it, and are now they've arrested him, are charging him with what they believe was a crime, and his trial will determine whether or not he's in violation of the law. This is "the world functioning as it ought to."

    It's not a threat if there is no method or means behind it. If it had been a threat they would have found evidence of his planned attack.
    There's a reason he was arrested for some 1st-amendment fucking bullshit about "harassment" and not an actual crime.

  90. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by monkeyzoo · · Score: 1

    How come the article doesn't explain what 4/16 is? I have no idea still!

  91. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    The police are interested in anonymous tips insofar as they will keep your identity secret from others. If you call in warning about a bomb, they are damn sure going to want to find exactly what you know and why you know it. After they get that info, they very well might let you stay anonymous to the public.

  92. Saw this coming a mile away by jeek · · Score: 1

    I noped the hell off of Yikyak the day they said I could no longer use their service if I didn't link my Google account. It's like they forgot the definition of the word "anonymous".

    --
    If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
    1. Re: Saw this coming a mile away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they didn't. Actually, the government reminded them about it: "anonymous" = "terrorist".

    2. Re:Saw this coming a mile away by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I noped the hell off of Yikyak the day they said I could no longer use their service if I didn't link my Google account. It's like they forgot the definition of the word "anonymous".

      God, the evil bastards preventing you from making anonymous threats.

      I bet you think that people who make hoax bomb threats are just exercising their right to free speech.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  93. 9/11 killed more people than Pearl Harbor attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The assault, which lasted less than two hours, claimed the lives of more than 2,500 people, wounded 1,000 more and damaged or destroyed 18 American ships and nearly 300 airplanes. Almost half of the casualties at Pearl Harbor occurred on the naval battleship USS Arizona, which was hit four times by Japanese bombers.

    The September 11 attacks resulted in 2,996 immediate (attack time) deaths: 2,977 victims and the 19 hijackers.[1] A total of 372 people with non-U.S. citizenship (excluding the 19 perpetrators) perished in the attacks, representing just over 12% of the total. The immediate deaths include 246 victims on the four planes (from which there were no survivors), 2,606 in New York City in the World Trade Center and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon.[2][3] All of the deaths were civilians except for 71 law enforcement officers and 343 firefighters killed at the World Trade Center site in New York City, New York,[4] one law enforcement officer killed when United Airlines 93 crashed into the field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania,[5] and 55 military personnel killed at the Pentagon near Washington D.C., Maryland.

  94. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Agent0013 · · Score: 2

    Unless you think that the law enforcement folks are a bunch of hired guns for a corrupt political system and they will use their power to harass and/or kill you. I'm sure we can look to other examples to see how well the typical reporting of a problem goes. What about whistle-blowers? They get the red carpet rolled out for them, right? Ok, then let's look at people who report flaws in websites. They don't get arrested and thrown in jail for hacking, right? Yeah, I'll go with the good old "Don't Talk To The Police!" And that includes when you know bad stuff is going down. It would especially include when bad stuff is going to happen to the police. In that case we should start a kickstarter campaign to get more of it!

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  95. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by BitterOak · · Score: 1

    Haven't you figured it out yet, here on /. it's not a crime if you use a computer.

    Unless it's the NSA using their computers. Then it is a very serious crime.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  96. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by nytes · · Score: 2

    I'm not too sure about that.

    I remember a movie called "Atomic Café" that compiled various newsreels, documentaries and propaganda films from the late '40's through the '60's. In one of them a scientist explained that there are three components to an atomic explosion: heat, concussion, and radiation. Then he proceed to add that, of the three, radiation was not much of a concern.

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  97. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by unrtst · · Score: 1

    Are you trying to say that if the kid actually did go on a shooting rampage - which indeed was what he was referring to...

    Why are so many people so quick to assume this? It's been years since the shooting. I'm betting that every year on that date, some peoples tensions are high (as indicated by the response to this mess). Just playing devils advocate, but it seems entirely feasible that he was referring to every 4/16 from 2008 onward, and his arrest was kind of a self fulfilled prophecy.
    Convicting someone (in the public eye at least) based on less than a tweet and a picture of an Asian (who looks a bit stoned) seems like overreacting to me. It's very VERY unlikely it was a legitimate threat, which brings it down to intent, and the level of intent, which could range from a faux paus or misunderstanding, to political statement, to fake threat (intent to insight), to a promise. I certainly don't see enough evidence to know it was "indeed" a threat that he was going to go on a shooting rampage.

  98. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If my family was hunted down and raped 8 years ago, and you write a note saying "AC's family is going to get raped again on the 8th anniversary of their first rape," then yes, you might be communicating a threat and thus subject to arrest.

    What if the poster was a member of your family (ie. a student at VT), remembered the event vividly, knows that others morn that date every year, and was intending to participate in (or get dragged to) the yearly memorial-ish service, and he posted, "Another 4.16 moment is going to happen tomorrow. Just a warning (sic).”

    My gut says that's probably unlikely, but I really don't know because the article is very short on details. Regardless, he did NOT say, "Many people at VT will be shot again on the 8th anniversary of Cho's rampage". That's quite a different statement.

  99. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Are you trying to say that if the kid actually did go on a shooting rampage - which indeed was what he was referring to...

    Why are so many people so quick to assume this?

    Lessee, a guy goes nuts and kills a lot of people a few years ago

    A person makes a direct comment saying the same thing that happened a few years ago is going to happen tomorrow.

    If that isn't a credible threat to you, nothing is.

    Sure, it's likely to be yet another kook, but let's put it this way. I don't know if you are married or have children, but let's just say that the person you love most in the world is shot, and it turns out the police had actual credible evidence that the person that shot your loved one made a threat the day before, but the police had your attitude, "Oh we shouldn't be so quick - let's ignore the threat."

    You okay with that? I mean, we wouldn't want to assume the person who made a threat was actually going to do that, I mean, he might have just been having a little fun. Or maybe had a bad day, so it's understandable he might make a threat to re-enact a mass murderer's rampage. Hey, just sayin' right?

    In a sane world, sane people take threats seriously. The Facebook/Twitter world we are in now is not sane, not when credible threats of harm are considered free speech or just havin' a little fun.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  100. Daughter at VT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My daughter is a freshman at VT and called me at work after hearing about this. She was VERY worried. She knew several who were impacted by the shooting including our next door neighbor and one of my daughter's coaches.

    Threats like this can't be ignored. There IS a difference in free speech (which I strongly support), and threats.

    Defend those that speak out, but there have to be some limits, typically very small, to speech.

  101. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by muridae · · Score: 1

    Because none of the freshmen, hell even most the senior grad students, were around for the original shooting. It's been 8 years, that's enough time for freshmen who were here to have graduated, and gotten done a combined masters/PhD. Eight years ago, those freshmen would have been in 5th grade, probably in another state! The community of Blacksburg, though, remembers; mostly because there was the escaped cop killer at the beginning of that term that had the campus locked down and people scared, and a student beheaded at the end of that term. The faculty, staff, and townies like me hear a threat like that and get worried.

    Even the staff at NRVCS get worried, since that was another of the targets. I have friends working there now, and had family working there the day shit happened in '07.

    Maybe if the anon student hadn't posted "another 4 16 moment is going to happen" (moment, wtf?) followed with "Just a warning" (okay, that sounds . . . threatening) then maybe people wouldn't have reacted the way they did.

  102. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by muridae · · Score: 1

    Thought crime implies the person only thought about it. They didn't. They posted it in a publicly viewable site; that shifts from being a thought crime to making a threatening statement.

  103. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a threat if there is no method or means behind it.

    "I'll fucking kill you!" That's a threat. There's no method, or means, behind it - as far as you know. Which is exactly why the police, and now the courts, are involved: a pretty specific threat was made. Police were asked to investigate, and now the results of their investigation will be used in the trial of the student to evaluate whether or not he is guilty of violating this law:

    18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

    If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

    (2000, c. 849.)

    If convicted, this is the penalty he faces:

    18.2-11. Punishment for conviction of misdemeanor.

    The authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor are:

    (a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.

    If it had been a threat they would have found evidence of his planned attack.

    No, if it had been a threat, they would have found evidence of him posting a threatening message. And guess what? They did find evidence of that, on Yik Yak. The law doesn't say "we have to find plans and means for your threat to be deemed a threat." And no reasonable person would suggest that the only way for a threat to be considered a threat is if you have a stockpile of guns and doomsday plans in your apartment.

    There's a reason he was arrested for some 1st-amendment fucking bullshit about "harassment" and not an actual crime.

    Yes - the reason is he *threatened* to commit a fairly serious crime, and the cops can't afford to ignore it just because there's nobody *actively* shooting up the VA Tech campus three moments after the threat was made. Only an idiot would suggest that cops can't investigate threats of violence before they occur, in an attempt to prevent them.

    Oh wait - you just suggested that. I guess that makes you an idiot.

  104. 4.16 by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    Would it have been too difficult to explain what "4.16" refers to? I've now googled it following some hints here and it turns out to refer to a mass shooting at Virginia Tech 8 years ago.

    This means that using it as a threat if you're a Virginia Tech student is in a different league than referring to Pearl Harbour, which TFS mentioned for some reason.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  105. Re:Illegal speech? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Not sure harassment by computer needs to be a thing. Pretty sure this kind of thing was already covered in the existing body of law regarding threats. That's what really annoys me about this.

    I think the point is to reinforce that using a computer to commit a crime doesn't give you some sort of Get Out Of Jail Free card.

    A lot of people here differentiate between yelling abuse at someone in the street and over the internet, when it's actually the same thing, and if it's a specific threat it can be illegal.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  106. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by unrtst · · Score: 1

    A person makes a direct comment saying the same thing that happened a few years ago is going to happen tomorrow.

    They were not so direct as you imply.

    but let's just say that the person you love most in the world is shot, and it turns out the police had actual credible evidence that the person that shot your loved one made a threat the day before, but the police had your attitude, "Oh we shouldn't be so quick - let's ignore the threat."

    AKA "Appeal to emotion". This can easily be flipped around, where any nearly threatening sounding statement by anyone causes them to be arrested.

    For example, a very recent comment of yours:

    The only cure for this travesty is to immediately fill the FEMA death camps with the entire racist, sexist and homophobic members who consist the entirety of Programming at present - the whole lot of them, because while a good egg might have slipped through, the cancer that infects programming is pervasive, and we cannot take the chance.
    Then, we must rebuild a new and proper programming community, and will adhere to strict guidelines according to gender, race, and sexual orientation.

    How is that not a threat? That's far more direct than what this kid said.

  107. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The US was working towards getting into a war with Germany. FDR considered Japan a distraction.

    In fact, the US and Germany were at war starting September 1941, although the war was undeclared for a few months, and it was limited to naval combat. The US had been violating international law for Britain and against Germany for several months before then. Hitler knew a full-scale war with the US was coming, and wanted to get in the first declaration of war.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  108. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    How is that not a threat? That's far more direct than what this kid said.

    Because it's a really poor poe, as poe's go

    A normal person would see it as sarcasm, lame or otherwise. Hard to imagine someone trying to make joke out of a student massacre.

    Your attempted rebuttal by calling that a threat, is a bigger laugh than the poor poe id made, and it is noted that you didn't even care to answer the question, which simply shows you as an internet troll.

    A stalker too.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  109. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Cycloid+Torus · · Score: 1

    Quite likely - -but was it software which made the evaluation of thousands of comments or some single person who said to himself, "seems threatening to me"? "Credible threat" is still being defined and seems to be a moving target as far as a concept and there seems to be several somewhat conflicting definitions in the law (centering on 'intent' and 'capability').

    --
    Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
  110. Re:Poster sounds sympathetic, but sounds like thre by Uzuri · · Score: 1

    Which would have been 4/15, not 4/16.

    --
    I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.