@ hikaricore

I think there's a big difference between protecting "free speech" and causing fear and panic.

Essentially, this guy essentially said "If your child has eaten this food, it'll die".

There's a law in this country and I assume in the US too that covers causing fear, which is what this guy did on a large scale.

Financial loss for the company would be an issue too. I suspect that there will still be some stigma in panicky parents minds that connects the company with "poisoned foods" which could lead to losses.

@hikaricore

Are you suggesting that he should have gotten away with it?!

@hikaricore

I for one am quite happy with the line being drawn here. If someone made anonymous threats to life of your beloved, how would feel about his "right to free speach" ? The kind of media used is not relevant here at all.

@Hikaricore

This isn't a free speech issue; free speech isn't the right to say things that will cause panic, for example shouting fire in a packed cinema isn't free speech, that would be being an arse.

Fire?

@ hikaricore - It's just the same as shouting fire in a public place, which is already outside of free speech laws I think.

Speaking as a dad, I'm glad this is an offense, you have to trust that the food your buying your child is safe, and things like this which threaten to harm your child are not, and should not be condoned.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre...

...that's not legal. or ethical. or a way to express yourself in a fresh artistic manner. It's dangerous. No pity for him.

Cult of the Amateur

When you gave every psycho, bigot, and zealot in the world a soapbox and a microphone, what did you expect? Harmony? We are our own worst enemy, the internet didn't change that.

re:So....

I think this is where we've drawn the line of free speech for quite some time. Whether it's youtube, telegraph or standing in a crowded theatre, makes no difference.

@hikaricore

My thoughts exactly. Although threats have always been handled a little differently, mosty depending on who you have threatened. But I believe this would be the first

@hikaricore

The line drawn where someone tried to incite a panic, plus causing loss of money and (especially with the current economic climate) possibly causing a company to fold. I'm happy with that line.

I thought free speech allowed someone to get their point across. What point was he making?

Hang 'em high, I say.

Yes it is

Just like you arent allowed to phone in fake bomb alerts to the police

@Hikaricore

This is fairly similar to shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre. If you did this is real life, you wouldn't expect it to go down very well. What makes you think the Internet should be any different?

Even Free Speech has limits

Provided said free speech does not cause confusion or panic or damage to property, person or businesses.

I am all for free speech, but these idiots go one step too far. It may have impacted sales of a product, cause undue worry, stress to numerous parents.

Why all because somebody thought it would be humourous to do such a thing - without any form of disclaimer or idea that it was a hoax.

No I'm sorry, but free speech needs to have some restrictions and this buddy just crossed my acceptable line.

@hikaricore

No, its like shouting Fire in a theatre, which dispite a claim of free speach is illealge

That's NOT free speech...

Threats are NEVER 'free speech'.

And if it's a sick joke, then it's time to send him to a place where the nice doctors can keep an eye for him for a few years...

Hahaha

What a twat

His crime was stupidity, not exercising free speech

@hikaricore

Law enforcement has always tried to catch people who do illegal things, even if it happens on the Interwebs. I'd say this is pretty straightforward illegal, so we're right to track him down. This isn't the sort of stuff that dooms the Internet.

re: hikaricore

Well, the line is already drawn at yelling "Fire!" in a crowded public place (mall, movie theater, etc), libel, slander, and hate speech. Why wouldn't one consider this just another example of drawing the line? Just because it's on the Internet and not in print/radio/television/in person?

@So....

You might want to reconsider your icon. Perhaps after you become better informed about what constitutes free speech?

Defamation and slander is not protected under free speech.

Prosecutors might also make a decent case for 'imminent lawless action', which is also not protected under free speech.

This guy is a tool. He deserves to be fined and to do time.

FREE SPEECH

The guy WAS accorded "free speech".

That is why he was able to say his piece.

Now he is paying the consequences...we are free to speak our minds, we are not free to absolve ourselves of the consequences.

Shout fire in the theatre....that is fine. Just don't be surprised if the consequence of doing so is to get ejected from the premises.

He got to say his piece & now he is being pilloried for the effects he had on the Gerber company. If he hadn't specifically targeted that company he would not have been arrested. Seems to me that there are a lot of people on here that don't understand that you either protect free speech or you don't. There is no concept of some speech is protected & some isn't.

So, there is such a thing as

negative advertising.

It is defamation really, that is all, I couldn't give two hoots that it involves baby food, it could be a claim that a certain make of machine guns backfire due to claims of tampering for all that it matters.

Free speech does mean without repercussion, but it does sort of keep itself to saying the truth, so if there is a fire in a theatre what should you do, well claim fire is the obvious one.

If the truth is subjective, then free speech still applies, but if you are making a claim designed to harm another that is not true, then there are repercussions. But, if you cannot speak the truth that is anti free speech, it has nothing to do with responsibility it has to do with truth.

@ g00p. That has GOT to be a joke post.

"I'm all for free speach, neutrality & all that jazz, I'd say I'm quite a hardcore advocate of such things.."

I dont get this joke/the point.

"But can't you agree that joking about killing babies isn't really a laughing matter? "

Yes you can. Dead baby jokes are not exempt. Not by a mile. They are kind of the whole point.

"Free speach or not - to cause so much upset and panic to new parents is not worth the advocacy of neutrality supporters."

errr..

"Fair play, the sentence perhaps a little steep - but had you come across such threats after bringing a baby into the world wouldn't you be a little less lenient?"

No. And who cares. That's called EMOTION and it DISTORTS things.

If you are for real, please stop thinking you are/ pretending to be open minded. You are not.

ps- shouting fire in a theatre is not technically illegal. If you genuinely thought there was a fire but there wasn't..you would not be charged for announcing it. It's the purposely alarming, disruption to services that needs to be prevented. It's not as if hearing the phrase would frighten the life out of anyone. It's just annoying. IMO it should be allowed. Barely anyone would do it, and those who did would be ignored, scoffed at then thrown out. OR they are people who are stupid enough to do it just now so the laws don't matter.

Free speech is irrelevant. This guy used a specific brand name. That is clearly illegal and clearly a problem. You can not use brand names without permission, and you cannot purposely spread malicious rumours to (presumably?) harm a business' sales, especially when it's completely made up. (as opposed to say, a rant about bad service at a restaurant)