• On GameSpot: Next-gen DS, Xbox tech contracts set?
April 26, 2009 10:25 AM PDT

FBI accuses Twitter user of massacre threats

by Steven Musil
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 34 comments

Posts to CitizenQuasar Twitter page.

(Credit: Screenshot by Steven Musil/CNET)

An Oklahoma City man who allegedly threatened on Twitter to turn a tax protest into a massacre has been arrested on suspicion of making interstate threats in what is believed to be the first federal prosecution based on posts made to the micro-blogging site.

The FBI arrested Daniel Knight Hayden, 52, after agents identified him as Twitter user CitizenQuasar. Using the micro-blogging site, Hayden allegedly threatened to start a "war" against the government at the Oklahoma City Capitol where a "Tea Party" tax protest was planned.

"START THE KILLING NOW! I am willing to be the FIRST DEATH!," read a message posted at 8:01 p.m. on April 11, which was followed by, "After I am killed on the Capitol Steps, like a REAL man, the rest of you will REMEMBER ME!!!" Another post said: "I really don' give a (expletive) anymore. Send the cops around. I will cut their heads off the heads and throw the(m) on the State Capitol steps."

Hayden directed many of his tweets toward another Oklahoma City man he erroneously thought was an organizer of the protest. Wired tracked down Earl Shaffer, a 68-year-old retiree who Hayden allegedly tweeted about, including posts with his phone number.

"He seemed to know stuff about me, but I don't know how or why," Shaffer told Wired. "He called me a few days before that tea party and let me know somehow he got my name as one of the organizers. I don't have the energy."

Shaffer told CNET News that he has never met Hayden and is unnerved by the situation.

"I have no idea who this guy is," Shaffer said. "It is very much a concern that he mentions my being killed."

One of the last messages posted to the site on April 15 says CitizenQuasar is "Locked AND loaded for the Oklahoma State Capitol. Let's see what happens."

Hayden was arraigned on April 16 and released to an Oklahoma City halfway house, according to various media reports.

The U.S. intelligence community has expressed concern that terrorists might use Twitter to coordinate attacks. A draft Army intelligence report prepared by the 304th Military Intelligence Battalion and posted to the Federation of American Scientists Web site examined the possible ways terrorists could use mobile and Web technologies such as the Global Positioning System, digital maps, and Twitter mashups to plan and execute terrorist attacks.

Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven.
Recent posts from Digital Media
Black Friday at Best Buy: What's the big deal?
Handbrake 0.9.4: Your best deal on Black Friday
AT&T gets Luke Wilson to hit Verizon again
ComScore: Online video scores another big month
The browser battles go on and on
NBA star won't tweet until he has 1 million followers
Judging the top 10 Internet moments of the decade
IKEA's brilliant Facebook campaign
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (34 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by Nicholas Buenk April 26, 2009 11:05 AM PDT
I can not think of a more clear violation of the 1st amendment than this. Arrested just for posting a comment on twitter? Ridiculous, this is something that I'd expect to only happen in a place like China.
Mad man or not, he still has a right to freedom of expression. And you can not pick and choose to whom rights apply.
Reply to this comment
by meh100 April 26, 2009 11:14 AM PDT
This isn't picking and choosing. In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that in cases of clear and present danger (i.e. inciting mass murders), the first amendment can't protect you. This precedent, that you can be arrested for trying to incite violence, has been upheld multiple times since then. You are allowed to say "I hate the government". You have the right to assemble on the steps of the State Capitol to protest. You do not have the right to incite a riot, or to threaten to shoot people.
by drewbyh April 26, 2009 12:34 PM PDT
@meh100 Well said and very correct. The 1st Amendment isn't license to say anything you want in any way you want. There are limits as stated by the Supreme Court.
by Nicholas Buenk April 26, 2009 12:38 PM PDT
I would disagree with that decision. Inciting a mass murder is not the same as causing one. If someone is inciting a mass murder, I want to be able to hear their justification for this incitement myself, and not merely go by faith in the wisdom of society that he must be wrong.
I have a good quote on this actually.


If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. from On Liberty by John Stuart Mill
by hellagrl70 April 26, 2009 12:53 PM PDT
To meh100, things have changed since 1919. Look up "Imminent lawless action", freedom of expression goes along way in this country. Subservient attitudes like yours will be the death of that freedom.
by monkeyfun14 April 26, 2009 4:29 PM PDT
@Nicholas
Its called preventing something before it happens if your kid was murdered and they could of prevented by taking action on a posting would you not be pissed off?
by ZetaZeta_ April 26, 2009 6:05 PM PDT
You've never heard the analogy you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre?
There's a difference between freedom and absolute license.
by Orion Blastar April 26, 2009 7:50 PM PDT
Welcome to the Obama Administration. When the Bush Administration was in power, many people blogged about attacking the President or starting wars with Police, and nobody got arrested. Now that Obama is in power, better watch what you blog about, they might start taking you seriously now.

We are approaching the Nanny State, nothing we can do to stop it. It is going to be a bumpy ride, bye bye freedoms and liberty, hello International Law, censorship, the Thought Police, being arrested for blogging, etc.
by inachu1 April 26, 2009 8:01 PM PDT
by meh100 April 26, 2009 11:14 AM PDT
This isn't picking and choosing. In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that in cases of clear and present danger (i.e. inciting mass murders), the first amendment can't protect you. This precedent, that you can be arrested for trying to incite violence,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIPAC incites violence but just in the name of god and look how we help them.
Perhaps if the old man said to do this in the name of god he would be ok
by Nicholas Buenk April 26, 2009 11:48 PM PDT
@ZetaZeta The crowded theatre argument, was originally made by a lawyer in ww1, to justify shutting down an anti-war newspaper! Just an example of what happens when you let the legal system decide what is and isn't a fire.

@monkeyfun14 They could keep tabs on the guy, but there is no cause for an arrest.
by Kasiola2003 April 27, 2009 12:57 PM PDT
This type of case was also decided more recently in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
by msbpodcast April 26, 2009 11:25 AM PDT
He was arrested to uttering threats. (It really doesn't matter how. Its illegal.)

The man trolley is obviously "off the tracks" and he isn't making any sense with the threats.

Its better that the authorities stop this individual NOW and get him back on his meds, rather than when he's committed suicide by S.W.A.T team, called in after he's shot a bunch of innocent bystanders.

Until we have effective gun control you NEED this. (You can own all the guns you want but you can't shoot anyone who is "wearing" a GPS "beacon". [Think of the 9th century Icelandic concept of "Outlawry" enforced by technology. {While you can't shoot them, they can't shoot you. If you can shoot at them, then you CAN shoot at them.}])
Reply to this comment
by Sam Papelbon April 26, 2009 12:13 PM PDT
we should all be thankful that king george didn't have the FBI back then or we'd still be a british colony.
Reply to this comment
by blafouille April 26, 2009 8:17 PM PDT
You are still one...
by wannabersc April 26, 2009 12:28 PM PDT
A socialist with a gun? I thought that was against their state religion...

Well, they can always blame it on, oh I don't know... let's say Rush.
Reply to this comment
by gordon_geeko April 26, 2009 12:41 PM PDT
He's obviously a little warped, but I wonder how it's an interstate threat rather than an intrastate threat. He made the threats while in Oklahoma City and they were directed against people in Oklahoma city. Why couldn't the FBI have handed this off to the Oklahoma local authorities?
Reply to this comment
by celticbrewer April 27, 2009 9:44 AM PDT
it's the internet. I'm sure if one stray packet flowed out of the state- and I'm positive it did, there's your interstate threat.
by gordon_geeko April 26, 2009 12:44 PM PDT
Another technicality: he said he was willing to be the first death. How could he kill someone if he's dead? This makes it sound like he wasn't intent on killing anyone himself, although he does appear to be inciting others to do so.
Reply to this comment
by CurtisJasper April 26, 2009 1:18 PM PDT
This dude clearly thought he was a serious badass -- how else was he planning on cutting off people's heads AFTER he was dead?

By the way, doesn't this sound all too familiar? A crazy-ass militia type with his mind made up to "strike back" at the government in Oklahoma City...
Reply to this comment
by celticbrewer April 27, 2009 9:52 AM PDT
I'm not entirely sure who he intended to kill. Unless there's more that wasn't written here, it's pretty vague. It says he'd kill the cops who tried to stop him- which would be a given no matter what your views were. It said it'd start at the capitol building; but is it actually against the government? If he was in support of the anti-tax rally, why would he massacre the people attending it? Or if he didn't intend on killing the participants, why would he think that'd advance thier cause?

The guy just seems like a loon who wanted attention. If he had any politcal leaning, it surely doesn't sound like he was right-wing. If anything, it sounds like he was setting out to destroy the tea party.
by dubyas April 26, 2009 1:33 PM PDT
Now hold on a second--it's not as if they hauled him off to prison for the rest of his life. The man had an episode, made some threats he shouldn't have, and was summarily arrested. Now he gets to think about what he said for a while and how serious the consequences of carrying through those threats would be. This isn't a thing you just ignore until it happens. No first amendment rights were violated.

If he wasn't dealt with when the warning signs were exhibited and then happened to be one of those rare individuals who followed through with their crazy threats, then people would be criticizing the government which "ignored" the threat.

He's probably of no danger to anyone and if he's really just a frustrated old dude who had a little fit of rage, he'll be out of that halfway house soon enough.
Reply to this comment
by VampHobo April 26, 2009 5:29 PM PDT
Thank you, dubyas. To those of you who are jumping on the "****! The 1st amendment! Oh no!" band wagon..did you even read it? He was alluding to the Oklahoma city bombing, and rambling crazy nonsense about death. He clearly mentioned another person by name, and so he was arrested, and then released into a halfway house. There's nothing wrong with that at all. And the "On Liberty" quote? That has nothing to do with this. He mentioned a person, specifically. Even if he hadn't I'd say you'd all lost your minds, but the fact that he did is important.
Reply to this comment
by coffeecan April 26, 2009 5:56 PM PDT
At least this is one of the more intellectual discussions that I've seen lately in the comments sections of news articles. Thank you for your sound and grounded discussions.
Reply to this comment
by brightstarbeing April 26, 2009 7:35 PM PDT
Although I understand the arguments that this man should have freedom of speach, I agree with the Supreme Court that inciting violence and riot are not a right.
Reply to this comment
by Orion Blastar April 26, 2009 7:54 PM PDT
Was he really trying to incite violence, or was he just trolling? I think the later because he blogged he would be killed first, and after being killed he would lop off heads, which contradicts itself. But the FBI takes that sort of stuff seriously now Post-Bush, during Bush I'd see this kind of blogging and trolling all of the time and no FBI arrests as the bloggers continued to blog their hateful remarks towards the government and President, etc. If not almost everyone at Moveon.org and related blogs would have been arrested by the FBI. But now that Obama is in office, this is change?
Reply to this comment
by blafouille April 26, 2009 8:30 PM PDT
You have the freedom of speech but you bear the responsability of what you are saying,People have the right to prosecute if they feel threats or insults,watch your words,but you are free to go to jail too...Quality of speech that what i am looking for in a blog...
Reply to this comment
by SnowCrash8 April 27, 2009 1:25 AM PDT
1) Is the FBI and law enforcement now actively monitoring Twitter and other online tools, and if so in what manner? For example were users with the words 'tax teaparty' in a Tweet flagged in some manner, and if this is done, then what message keywords are they targeting?

2) Rather than arrest the person, could not they have first undertaken evaluation (which would not take that long), and then if the individual was truly deemed a threat (using reasonable, not invented guidelines), get him off the street?

3) Free speech is a very precious right to be protected, it is what the founders of this country fought and died for.

4) Is the FBI monitoring respondents to the article and putting YOU on a watch list? Think about it people!!
Reply to this comment
by selloco April 27, 2009 9:28 AM PDT
@Onion Blaster

You are an idiot. If you have memory problem then I suggest you start keeping a diary so that in the future you can refer to your notes before making monic comments.

Teenager arrested over internet threat to President
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/teenager-arrested-over-internet-threat-to-president-692970.html

Hammond man arrested for making threat on Bush's life
http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/wwl011309cbbushplot.43ac2e7.html

Man arrested for threatening Bush near White House
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2848993920080128?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Reply to this comment
by celticbrewer April 27, 2009 10:00 AM PDT
"You are an idiot". "...monic comments."

Typical hatred from your type. God forbid that anyone doesn't think just like you- they must be idiots and moronic. Always resorting to name calling in a friendly debate.

wow; you found 3 cases over 8 years. We've already had 3 in 3 months.
by selloco April 27, 2009 10:16 AM PDT
Those were the first three to come up in a goggle search. Something Onion Blaster should have done before posting his idiotic comments.
by Kasiola2003 April 27, 2009 12:58 PM PDT
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
Reply to this comment
by Harrison912 April 27, 2009 1:36 PM PDT
As a web site owner of safety and security products and Twitter user, I am very glad they caught him. I'm all about stopping the bad guys and this one is definitely a bad apple!
Reply to this comment
by SVSLOLGeek July 19, 2009 2:50 AM PDT
FBI = Fail boys investigations. **** them all. Our civil liberties are under attack everyday by these patriot act investigations done by the FBI , the **** suckers at the NSA. I hope none of them reproduce. They cant even find Osama but we did find Obama. lol no pun intended. I said on twitter that they should all be shot and that is my opionion but I am not going to do it. It is my **** right to say what I want to anytime I want to. And that is what I shall do!
by hassan_bin_sober April 28, 2009 9:32 AM PDT
The FBI sucks dick and barks at the moon!
Reply to this comment
(34 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next

The browser battles go on and on

roundup From Firefox to IE and from Chrome to Opera and Safari, there's no sitting still for browser makers looking to keep their products fresh and competitive.

3G wireless still holds promise

The next generation of 4G wireless may get all the headlines, but advanced 3G technology will likely dominate services for the next few years.

About Digital Media

The Web is now the place to go for news and entertainment. Look here for the latest on blogs, music, video, virtual worlds, social networking and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Digital Media topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right