How the FBI busted one YouTube nutjob in under a day

Originally posted by etcorngods
That "death of the firstborn" stuff is a Bible thing. If you believe the Bible, you believe that God made threats like this "Nut Job". Is God a Nut Job? Is everyone who believes the Bible a "Nut Job".

How about making it against the law to read/believer the Bible?

[edit on 31-3-2010 by etcorngods]

Did you even watch any of the videos? He said that he was the son of the god Enoch who spoke through him. When he said the first born will die, it was his father, THE GOD - ENOCH talking.

You do not think that sounds like a nutjob to you?

Originally posted by etcorngods
That "death of the firstborn" stuff is a Bible thing. If you believe the Bible, you believe that God made threats like this "Nut Job". Is God a Nut Job? Is everyone who believes the Bible a "Nut Job".

How about making it against the law to read/believer the Bible?

[edit on 31-3-2010 by etcorngods]

P.S.
Yes, that god in the bible does sound like a nutjob too. He is obviously suffers from a severe degree of bipolar disorder.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by etcorngods
That "death of the firstborn" stuff is a Bible thing. If you believe the Bible, you believe that God made threats like this "Nut Job". Is God a Nut Job? Is everyone who believes the Bible a "Nut Job".

How about making it against the law to read/believer the Bible?

[edit on 31-3-2010 by etcorngods]

Did you even watch any of the videos? He said that he was the son of the god Enoch who spoke through him. When he said the first born will die, it was his father, THE GOD - ENOCH talking.

You do not think that sounds like a nutjob to you?

What's wrong with being a "Nut Job"? I wouldn't want to be normal like you seem to be. I used to have a friend who was Majority Leader of Congress -- how would you like to be leader of the Majority -- how boring.

He was very boring, very normal, very Majority.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by etcorngods]

Originally posted by etcorngods
What's wrong with being a "Nut Job". I wouldn't want to be normal like you seem to be. I used to have a friend who was Majority Leader of Congress -- how would you like to be leader of the Majority -- how boring.

He was very boring, very normal, very Majority.

I get it. You are not for real, you do not care about the actual topic. OK. You are right, being normal is so boring. We should all run out and threaten to kill children 'cuz that's way cool!

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by etcorngods
What's wrong with being a "Nut Job". I wouldn't want to be normal like you seem to be. I used to have a friend who was Majority Leader of Congress -- how would you like to be leader of the Majority -- how boring.

He was very boring, very normal, very Majority.

I get it. You are not for real, you do not care about the actual topic. OK. You are right, being normal is so boring. We should all run out and threaten to kill children 'cuz that's way cool!

Saying that the "Firstborn" will die may not be a threat, but a religious belief. Is that worse than going to the Catholic Church?

Originally posted by etcorngods
Saying that the "Firstborn" will die may not be a threat, but a religious belief. Is that worse than going to the Catholic Church?

Seriously man. If you are not going to watch the videos,(or read the quotes for the videos that have been removed even) you have no clue how ignorant what you are saying is.

I will try ONE LAST TIME.

He said the he - as GOD - was going to do it!!!!!!!

[edit on 31-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Theres lots of weirdos such as this guy on youtube. Just look at all the creepy vlogs on youtube of creeps ranting and raving about all kinda stuff.


And I say good job on the fbi for busting this weirdo.
And whats with the guy in here defending this creep who said "I will kill all your firstborn children"? lol


[edit on 31-3-2010 by jeasahtheseer]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by etcorngods
Saying that the "Firstborn" will die may not be a threat, but a religious belief. Is that worse than going to the Catholic Church?

Seriously man. If you are not going to watch the videos,(or read the quotes for the videos that have been removed even) you have no clue how ignorant what you are saying is.

I will try ONE LAST TIME.

He said the he - as GOD - was going to do it!!!!!!!

[edit on 31-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Saying he is "God" doesn't bother me.

That old 84 year old fart with the cone hat, robes, velvet shoes, who calls himself "Pope", covers up all kind of sins of the queer Priests -- who should go to jail is certainly worse than the Nut Job who says he is God.

I've lost track. How many Catholic Priests who assault children have the FBI jailed.

I think it is ZERO

These guys are actually criminals, not just thinking/talking like the Nut Job. Nut Jobs are better than Priests or FBI agents.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by etcorngods]

Originally posted by etcorngods


Saying he is "God" doesn't bother me.

That old 84 year old fart with the cone hat, robes, velvet shoes, who calls himself "Pope", covers up all kind of sins of the queer Priests -- who should go to jail is certainly worse than the Nut Job who says he is God.

You are so seriously deluded that it is sad. It is not saying he is god that is the problem. It is stating that he is going to kill all the first born that is the problem. It is just icing on the cake that he claimed to be god while doing it. Get real. There is nothing nice, funny, or free about threatening to kill people's children. The fact that you both claim to have a god and condone threatening to kill children to the point of making up excuses for it is sickening to say the least.

Regardless of whether or not that man was going to do it or not, he doesn't have the right to say some of the stuff he said. It's that simple. I'm a huge proponent of free speech but free speech should at the very least be sensible, reasonable, rational, and thoughtful. Passion is fine, but this is a point where a man's emotions overtake any form of rational thinking and that is pretty dangerous.

You have every right to attack an individual for what they do to you through words that are not threatening. Attack what they did, not who they are. Who they are does not matter outside of the context of similar events such as this, as it is a fact that youtube policies for taking down videos are absolutely absurd. This can be taken into consideration. But you don't direct your comments at a mans family, and you certainly don't threaten harm towards their family. That is obscene to the highest level, and quite frankly for those threaten their peace of mind is violated when this happens. Especially when someone appears the way this man does and says the things he says.

Shoo trolls.

This is a very important issue.

Obviously, making threats is illegal - and nutjob or no, anyone who threatens someone else's life needs to be dealt with legally. This has NOTHING to do with Free Speech.

But. Should the FBI be able to access user information from Internet services like YouTube?

Does the ability of law enforcement agencies to access user information compromise Net neutrality?

It's a conundrum and I'm torn.

Is anonymity essential for privacy? Is privacy a synonym for anonymous?

Is anonymity essential for Net neutrality? Can the Internet remain neutral if posters' true identities can be accessed - by government and database buyers? Where should the lines be drawn? How?

Answers? Comments?

Originally posted by soficrow


Answers? Comments?

If you want to stay anonymous, do not SIGN UP to public websites. He posted his face on a public website. He gave up all his anonymity when that happened.

This would be different if he were a faceless voice on a private website but that was not the case.

reply to post by soficrow



When concerning themselves with people who've broken the law by directly or indirectly threatening the lives of public officials and their families, as well as those employees of private companies the short answer is yes, the FBI does have the right to track down IP addresses from Websites considered to be in the public domain.

I understand the possible abuses of such power, but the fact remains that this individual, harmless religious zealot nutjob that he may or may not have been, broke the law whether he was going to carry through on any of his threats or not. You cannot verbally threaten, or imply a threat, towards a public official and his family, to say nothing of the blanket threat against YouTube, without having law enforcement use every tool at their disposal to lock you up - including court orders issued to the administrators of Websites to release information such as an IP address or account information.

My opinion I suppose, but I see nothing wrong with what the FBI did considering the flagrant illegality of what this dolt did. Now whether or not he should get locked up in a prison or be deemed not guilty by reason of insanity and thusly undergo years of psychiatric care in a loony bin is up for debate.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Now I get it. People do not see the difference between what someone might do and what someone clearly states they are willing to carry out, showing desire and personal motive. Has your family ever been threatened? Ever had a person stand on your lawn and tell you that they will be coming back to set the house on fire while you AND YOUR FAMILY slept? Ever been through something like that? Is pretty hard to see that as free speech and not an actionable THREAT.

There is a difference between what someone might do and what someone clearly states they are going to do.

I can see your point. BUT, in your scenario, with someone standing on your lawn, the person is right there, in your face, and able to act on said threat. In addition, he is specifically targeting you and yours. That's not quite the same thing as making threats to entire groups of unnamed individuals, on the internet, with whom there is almost no possibility of actually carrying out said threat. All this seems to be, in my mind, is a rant/vent that's been blown out of proportion. There seems to be quite a bit of assuming, and I don't have to tell you what happens when you assume.

Chrono

Originally posted by Recouper
I don't know guys. You do raise a good point. But if I was at the receiving end of such a threat, I'd want to be able to lay a legal complaint to ensure the safety of my family.
That's not how this situation happened and I'm certainly not defending the current system, I'm just of the belief that while one person should have the right of freedom of speech, another person should have the right to claim some sort of personal infringement if they believe they have received a threat.

Again, I agree with your thoughts. But then again, I think there are degrees of legitimacy here. There are obvious levels of threat, and this, I think, falls into the area of very low probability. I can understand if someone were to say: "Well any probability is not acceptable" or some such. I just can't agree with that premise though, because there's a demonstratible difference between "might could" and "definitely." Him saying he is going to harm YouTube people, is like me threatening everyone with a Visa card, or a flat-screen, it's a bit ridiculous.

Chrono