YouTube 'poisoned baby food' hoaxer pleads guilty A New York man on Thursday admitted he repeatedly posted videos of himself on YouTube claiming he caused millions of jars of baby food to be poisoned. Anton Dunn, calling himself "Trashman," posted a video of himself on in April claiming to have "disciples" working for the company who spiked Gerber baby food with cyanide and …
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.
You consider some moron claiming to have poisoned a widely distrubuted food free speach?
So would you be will to tell us your name, phone number, email and physical address. I was thinking of making viceo claiming someone is child molester. It'll be hilarious. If you have a apicture or some video of yourself and where you live it'll make the video even funnier.
I'm all for free speech - in fact I'm vehemently against censorship - but when idiots like this go around trying to incite fear and such, that's very different. He got what he deserved.
I should have the right to speak freely, including bashing the current leaders if I so desire - but if I say I'm going to kill the current leader, that's clearly crossing a line. So it is with claiming to have poisoned food.
Disclaimer: I'm not planning to kill anyone. Please don't come and bash in my door, FSB/ФСБ!
@ 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.
You need to understand "freedom of speech" better -- there *are* limitations to it. Specifically when it comes to someone harming lives, liberty, or property of others (per Supreme Court Ruling).
IMO, the charge of "threats in interstate commerce" is very applicable. He should get in trouble for it.
Now, go do your homework, and don't make silly assumptions about the Constitution and it's Amendments.
I assume that you are saying that what this guy did should be considered free speech, and there should be no consequence for him.
If so, then, yes. This is exactly where the free speech line is drawn. This is an almost perfect example of the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" scenario. It's like calling in a bomb threat, and using "But there was no bomb" as your defense. The fact that he used the net as his medium is irrelevant.
for those "free speech" folks who fear censorship, just imagine if it had been threats against your favorite coddled minority. You'll have no problem demanding this guy's nuts be nailed to a wall and an "Internet Czar' appointed by Obama to "keep the internet safe".
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.
I'm all for free speach, neutrality & all that jazz, I'd say I'm quite a hardcore advocate of such things..
But can't you agree that joking about killing babies isn't really a laughing matter? Free speach or not - to cause so much upset and panic to new parents is not worth the advocacy of neutrality supporters.
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?
..mines the jacket coz I'm not staying here to watch people shun a "joke" that makes loving parents panic over their kids safety.
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.
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?
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.
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.
This was "crying wolf" with implications of causing panic to the masses. It was stupid, irresponsible, and shows that he was a liar. The person is more than welcomed to make any speech he wishes, but he just needs to understand that there are consequences to his actions.
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.
"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)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
