Anti-GMO crusader issues death threats, posts target list

[Lagmonster]

To those involved in biotechnology, the name Mike Adams of Natural News rings a bell. He's one of the more extremist members of the anti-GMO, anti-Monsanto, anti-biotechnology wingnuts out there, but now he's gone and upped the ante by posting a clearly-worded threat against anyone who is involved in biotech or even speaks favourably about GMOs or Monsanto (calling them 'collaborators' to an 'agricultural holocaust', with lots of Hitler references, because luddites never have original ideas). When criticized for his extremism, he doubled down and posted a list of names of people he feels he has a 'moral duty' to kill.

Article on the crazy-man rant here

Realistically, the guy is crazy but probably neither capable nor willing to act out his homicidal fantasies. I think of this as a stupid plan to bully critics into silence. But that doesn't make it any less wrong, or any less worrying that someone equally crazy but a lot less cowardly might listen to him.

[Eternal_Freedom]

So he considers anyone who speaks favourably about Monsanto et al to be worthy of a death threat. I bet you he pleads "right to free speech" without a single hint of irony.

[Borgholio]

Posting a list of people he "must" kill could get him in a ton of hot water if the authorities got wind of it. He should have stopped at the whining part.

[TheFeniX]

It amazes me that saying "Imma shoot up my school" in Runescape gets you 15 years in prison, but "kill these specific people" posted on a website you own is totally free speech.

[mr friendly guy]

Ah natural news, that lying piece of shit website where
a) calls to improve cancer research as 88% of research in the lab fails to yield products on the market = 88% cancer treatments on the market don't work
b) anti vaxxers
c) homopathy works, and James Randi's attempt to overdose on homeopathic medication is bullshit because you can't overdose on homeopathy, because... because.. ah fuck it.

BTW, the little chickshit has backed out.
http://www.naturalnews.com/046097_biote ... louts.html#

I have always stated in this story, as you can see below: "For the record, in no way do I condone vigilante violence against anyone, and I believe every condemned criminal deserves a fair trial and a punishment that fits the crime. Do not misinterpret this article as any sort of call for violence, as I wholly disavow any such actions. I am a person who demands due process under the law for all those accused of crimes."

This guy is a piece of scum. His supporters are scum. Can't government agencies investigate this, since you can get investigated and jailed for joking that you will kill someone (over a conversation between gamers).

[RogueIce]

There's a blog post saying that the FBI and other agencies are investigating (which is one reason why he's trying to distance himself from it, according to them) but they didn't offer any confirmation. And as a general rule most law enforcement agencies don't comment on active investigations except maybe to say they're doing one. Not that I especially feel like asking the FBI about it or anything, but I suppose if this gets picked up by bigger media outlets they might.

[blahface]

So he considers anyone who speaks favourably about Monsanto et al to be worthy of a death threat. I bet you he pleads "right to free speech" without a single hint of irony.

The first amendment only applies to government suppressing speech. So... that means if government tries to stop him from using speech to terrorize political opponents, that is an abuse of government power prohibited by the first amendment. Makes about as much sense as the Citizen's United Ruling.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I think this was a Canadian guy, so the US First Amendment doesn't apply. At any rate, I seem to recal something in the UN's declaration of universal human rights about free speech. SO he can still plead that he is perfectly allowed to use his free speech to shut everyone else up.

[Simon_Jester]

The thing about UN declarations of rights is that they afford considerable leeway for individual countries to interpret them.

That's a design feature, not a bug. While nearly all countries can reasonably say that "freedom of speech" is a good thing in their society, they don't all mean the same thing. And they shouldn't be required to, because, well, cases like this. Which force us to ask, how radical a political position counts as protected speech? How much violence can you want and still be protected? Is wishing for Wall Street bankers to be 'first up against the wall when the Revolution comes' okay? Is wishing genetic engineers dead okay? Where's the line that has to be crossed?

Not all societies will want to answer that the same way, they shouldn't be required to, and happily you can participate in UN conventions without the UN demanding that you do so.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Actually, I was merely commenting that if he goes with "it's free speech" as an excuse, then it will be ironic that he is using that to justify telling everyone who doesn't agree with him to shut up or die.

On the actually question you raise, I think the line is drawn somewhere between "you should die" and "I'm going to kill you for xyz reason."

[Borgholio]

I think that a somewhat generalized statement such as, "All Wall-street bankers should die" is not as bad as specific, direct statements such as, "Here is a list of individuals who should be murdered..."

One could simply be attributed to wishful thinking or venting (which is usually ok), but the other comes off as a death threat and IMO is certainly not protected free speech.

[Lagmonster]

At this point, Mike Adams is into tinfoil-hat mode, apparently claiming that the "Monsanto collaborators" target list page was a false-flag operation by Monsanto to make him look unhinged. Dude doesn't realize he can't win; Options are that 1) it was him who put up the target list, in which case he's crazy and lying. Or 2) it was someone willing to take him seriously, in which case he's viewed as inciting people to violence. Or else 3) there's a real conspiracy afoot by a globe-spanning corporation with near-infinite resources to make him look like a wretched cretin, in which case it succeeded brilliantly and he's fucked.

[TheFeniX]

The whole thing is one ethical and legal gray area. Me saying "X group should all die" doesn't mean a whole lot as one anonymous Internet poster, but what happens when it's someone with a dedicated audience? Enough of "you know, the world might be better off without X" spread out over time makes it hard to absolve yourself of responsibility when a fan decides to act.

How specific does your threat have to be before action is justifiable? How likely are you to actually make good on this threat and is it something said in the moment or a premeditated course of action over weeks/months? The justice system, at least in America, seems to be ass backwards from my account: the people with the smallest amount of powerbase/audience making spur of the moment rash comments has the law come down like Thor's Hammer. But people with influence and power (even outside the political landscape) get the kid's gloves treatment by law enforcement even though they spew calls for violence for years.

Even still, there's always the "safe" targets to spew threats of violence towards. And that's a whole other bag of cats as everyone's definitions seem to be all over the map, even accounting for hyperbole.

[Borgholio]

It is a grey area definitely but I think posting names and addresses is far more specific and should not be a grey area.