I'm sorry, but 'joking' about blowing up something ANYWHERE in 2010 that is in earshot of another person (either physically or digitally) will likely get you at least a mild amount of attention from the authorities.

My question however is did the authorities have someone report this to them, or were they proactively monitoring twitter for such? In my interactions with federal level law enforcement, it seems that their proactive monitoring is poor at best.

just because it will doesnt mean it should, hence it being news.

IIRC then he was "reported" by someone.

The convictions will continue until the quality of humour improves.

Reminds me of the scene in Meet the Parents where Ben Stiller is thrown off the airplane and interrogated for saying bomb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ25xMRHtj4

Sometimes I'm annoyed, and saddened by how reactionary the internet can get. WE might look at it and see it as a joke, because our frame of perspective is totally different. The government, not so much.

If someone 'jokes' about blowing up a building, and the government does nothing, suddenly this is a whole different story. People ought to start figuring out how that works.

Pity the guy.

It's reasonable cause to investigate him, sure. To arrest and convict him for terrorism? Absolutely not. Freedom of speech is generally seen as essential to being considered free. Being able to be convicted for an offhand remark in an unofficial situation is a complete violation of that freedom.

Of this I can agree.

Maybe a brief detainment, just enough for an investigation to be processed to ensure he doesn't have the materials/intent to actually perform an act of violence, and once it's been concluded that he's innocent, send him on his way with an apology and one of those super-sized lolipops.

I'm all about due process, but I'm all about people exercising discretion at the same time. But otherwise, I agree with you.

I agree but there is no reason for him to be found "guilty" of anything. Arrested, prosecuted, and acquitted is what should have happened to the extreme.

More info, earlier submission here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1334580

Original story: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1059803

How is shouting threats on Twitter fundamentally different than calling the airport or going there and shouting the same words there?

I don't think it would be OK if I emailed TechCrunch and threatened to kill them all if they don't stop their blogging within a week. And if the police comes call it a joke.

The last time I checked, no one had to pass an IQ test to use the Internet. Maybe it's time for Twitter (and other social media--you know who you are), to require potential users to pass a "minimal common sense" test. BTW, my remark is intended as humor and is in no way intended as a measure of my own common sense.

Freedom of speech doesn't cover shouting FIRE! in a crowded theatre.

But does it cover saying to your friend that if the show doesn't improve, you'll burn it down?

Remember that this was not a public announcement.

I'd question that: it was a public tweet visible to anyone, wasn't it?

It was clearly a joke and I don't think the guy should be arrested either, but Twitter is as close to a public announcement as you can get.

Well now there's a few thousand tweets about blowing up the airport -- are they going to arrest everyone?

Why not? And then throw them into twison.