Steve, which website did you use to search for subpoenas, etc.? Thank you.

we will... rise from the dirt... LOL. I understand what this thug was on about, but the dirt is pretty much where he and his kind belong. What's more disturbing is the sentence "Christ is dead." So many racists describe themselves as Christians, and the thought is comforting that they do recognize (in some small way) a moral authority beyond their own feverish rantings. "Christ is dead," though -- there's a completely unhinged cuckoo-bird, notwithstanding the use of quasi-Revelations imagery. Nice grab for the feds. (And a damned sight more useful than surveilling anti-war activists...)

Hopefully he learns a good lesson and suffers some punishment for his bigotry and stupidity.

The concept of "hate speech" is an invention of the left who are seeking to undermine our 1st amendment guarantee to freedom of speech. It is an attempt to prevent the free discourse and debate that the health and effectiveness of our nation’s political process depends upon. “Hate speech” is nothing more than an extension of the "I'm offended so you have to be quiet" routine. Just like the "I'm offended" ploy, the problem with "hate speech" is that it is purely subjective. Anything can be defined as hate speech if the person it is directed at "feels" that it is. The difference is that where “I’m offended!” depends upon etiquette to shame someone into being quiet, “Hate Speech” seeks to marshal the power of the state to ensure silence. The FBI did not subpoena this information because it contained "hate speech," but rather because it made some very specific threats, such as "We will come out of the night and rise from the dirt to murder you in your sleep." If the email had merely said "I hate black people" which is about a clear an expression of hatred as you can get, then the FBI would not be involved in this because no crime would have been committed. To declare in a headline that the FBI is chasing after someone over "Hate Speech" is a severe breach of journalistic ethics. Not only is it untrue, but it lends credence to the concept of "hate speech," which is itself an even greater lie.

Not sure, but i don't believe people should be jailed or in court for sending emails. I believe the response to unwanted email is a spamfilter? Soon everyone will be jailed for sending an email when they get upset about something. I don't believe that you can judge someone based on a single email anyways. I find the writing personally not scary, some what immature actually with no real points of impact. And so completely vague that it does not seem to be a threat. It seems to me to be someone who is anger about something, but can't do anything about, so he sends a mean email. (which does nothing but perhaps make himself feel better) It seems to me that the only people who get scared by words are religious groups and the US Government. Then they reuse this fear to divide people into even smaller groups. The Government uses it to enforce there own ideologies. Which makes even more chance for conflicts. I think that governments need to be careful with this type of digging, perhaps there is more information available to them then to this article which is why they need to dig the emails out of gmail. I hope there reaction is not based soley on 1 email. But it is a matter of time before rumors and mis interpreted comments in emails can get you put in jail. Actually we may as well consider ourselves in jail because your "free life" is dependent on the US Government's interpretation of your emails - the warden.

Not sure, but i don't believe people should be jailed or in court for sending emails. The FBI and other authorities don't put people in jail or pursue them in any way just "for sending emails". His email was a very specific, physical threat to the lives of others: "We will come out of the night and rise from the dirt to murder you in your sleep...". So that's quite a bit different than just "sending an email". "Soon everyone will be jailed for sending an email when they get upset about something." Again, Brian, you are wayyyyy off here. This person wasn't just "upset about something". He made a specific physical threat to the lives of others, as mentioned above. So no, people will not be pursued by the law if you send an email explaining how upset you are, unless you threaten physical violence against others. "I hope there reaction is not based soley on 1 email. But it is a matter of time before rumors and mis interpreted comments in emails can get you put in jail." While you may be okay with people making specific, physical threats I am not, and many in society are not. And you mention "mis interpreted comments in emails..."? There's not much to misinterpret if you make a physical threat against someone else. Here's an idea: DON'T MAKE PHYSICAL THREATS AGAINST PEOPLE! People disagree all the time, some people are even downright nasty, but that's fine. What we need to be sure of is that "opinions", not physical threats, are left alone and allowed. That is free speech, as Lee Reynolds has described. I also agree with Lee about the press claiming this case is about "hate speech". It isn't about "hate speech" necessarily. But that's the press for you, using those tag lines that get as much attention as possible, regardless of the long term consequences.

If you do a quick Google search, or search via findlaw.com or a similar site, you will find that "hate speech" has been broadly defined by judicial scholars as bigoted speech directed toward a specific ethnic group. So while I understand that "hate speech" as a concept is very controversial, the headline is not misleading.

It's great to have this matter be reported... I wish we had more information about the perpetrator than that he rented the "apartment of access" from June to July... Wouldn't it seem unusual to any reasonable person for one to travel such a distance to rent an apartment for one month (or maybe less), access what to some, might appear to be an untraceable internet site, and send such a message??? I’d like to know the perpetrator’s former lifestyle (places of address, means of income, reason for being in VA, a basis of his knowledge of the accessibility of the "offending" computer and what other messages, if any, he sent from the identified computer and was he using any other computer in the same time-period for e-mails or other computer generated communications. Actually, this "smells" to me as a covert operation. If one (assuming a degree of logic-mindedness) wanted to deliver a threat (as this clearly was) to an organization as openly available as the NAACP he could have utilized many, many less expensive methods than to have uprooted his place of abode to travel hundreds of miles with any expectation of finding a "concealed" computer access to the internet. As an example; one could go down the street of any city and visit an internet cafe or library to get online and send his mail. I'm not at all upset that NAACP was thoughtful to the extent of reporting the receipt of this piece of ill-advised garbage to the FBI -- I just wonder if the FBI or some other Agency may have authored the piece. A supporting element of this conclusion is the absence of charges/court action against the perpetrator. If/when that might occur; the matters would become public accessible information.

However, the documents obtained by Google Watch tell, in their own right, a fascinating tail of digital sleuthing. "Tail"? How about "tale," instead?

:-) fixed.

Yes, title really should have been about Gmail being used to communicate a threat, not hate speech. It's permissible to say, "You ought to be shot." or even, "I ought to shoot you." As those are both statements of beleif and protected speech. However, if you say, "I going to shoot you." that is a statement of intent, that of communicating a threat. Communicating a threat is against the law, and even allows a certain leeway in acceptable reactions on the part of the victim. Most of the time a victim can hand this over to the police for them to take care of it. On the RARE occasions that the police are not available, AND you have reasonable beleif that your person is in immediate danger, AND you are unable to flee the situation or safely resolve it otherwise, then use of force, up to and including the use of deadly force, is allowed. I'd personally rather spend 6 months in court justifying why I sent an attack to the hospital instead of being dead myself.

We have to say one thing regarding, well, everything. TRUE!!! The guy is a DOLT, but what was his motivation? Ever had an Un-Provoked runIn with a race related issue? and what's up with "they're whyte raesist beastarts"? F YOU I SAY! Dont EVER call me a Racist. MoFo!!! The idea of racisim is such an un-explored thing in the world that it just keeps getting more and more absurd every day. For starters - I am DEFINATLY NOT a racist. However, I do, sometimes find myself with a race related clash of understanding. OK, Most of the time. Mostly because of IMPROPER education. The point is, I'm a half Apache and half Scotch/Irish Hienz 57 punk who just HAPPEND to look White after burth. WTF??? So, I'm an A-hole for being WHITE-er than you!?!? People are taught "Black History" This" or Cuban or Mexacan or Spanish or whatever, BUT I HAVE NEVER IN MY LIFE heard of a Native American History or "Human History of Greatness" I'm proud of my heritage('s) and I guaranty that if there was a "White History Month" or a "White Pride Week" or a book called "Great White Leaders" every ignorant prick without a LICk of understanding for what I'm saying would BOO and Piss and Moan. And it's pathetic. It's like some God Damn WhinyBaby F'n fight for Attention. Ooohh, I'm darker skined than you, waaahh, I need welfare, and a check every month because i has to go get me some crack, ooohhhh, why is that white man over there with a...,,, Oh and THATS another God Damn thing right there! If I see a Dirty Black or WHITE or Hispanic or whatever Person with a Cow Boy hat on, you can BET YOUr ASS that I have JUST AS MUCH RESPECT FOR HIM/HER AS I DO FOR MYSELF!!! Why!?! Because, They KNOWS what it's like to be in my shoes. ALSO, That man or woman More than likley workes HARDER and faster than %90 of you peices of crap that are bitchin' about what I wrote just now. So FUCK all the HATIN bastards that hate due to color, If you wanna Hate, at least you could do it for a reason. EXAMPLE's : -Collects Welfare and heads DIRECTLY to the Liquer store -Theif -Child Molester -Murderer -Minipulative Antaginistic -Whore (man or woman)(sorry, but, anyone who messes with my lady is playin with a firing squad) -Greedy People Use your immagination, if you f'n have one. ... and Yea! I'm pissed.

No, the Left did not invent "hate speech." Those who hate, (surely on the ultra-right side of the fence) invented hate speech. That being said, it is a shame that such maniacs are still among us. Do they have the right to speak? Yes, of course. Do they have the right to terrorize and threatene lives? NO THEY DO NOT! We are all aware that you cannot stand up in a theatre and cry "fire." Threatening violence against a person or a group is n that same category. I sincerely hope this individual is caught and stopped. Unfortunately,racism and the violence it perpetrates is stiill much to much part of the fabric of American society. Let us not be cajoled into thinking that there is no more racism in this country. THE BILL OF RIGHTS is much too precious a document, its ideals much to sacred to be treated loosely.

While specific physical threats were made, those threats are basically paraphrases from lyrics by Slayer and other "Satanic" metal bands. Frankly, it's a big over-reaction in my opinion. This is what e-mail filters are for. Unless there was some other additional non-electronic activity (phone calls, letters, attempted break-in, etc), all that happens is a lot of taxpayers money is wasted chasing after a low-threat loser who'll end up destroying himself anyways out of pure stupidity. Not saying it isn't a law-enforcement issue, but it certainly isn't FBI material IMO. But politically, it would look really really bad for the FBI ignore death threats (no matter how childish and non-serious they are) against any minority-rights organization. (And when the heck is the NAACP going to change their name? It's not the 1950s anymore! National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? That's embarrasing for anyone who works for the NAACP!)

The email does merit some comedy value if you picture it being said by Daffy Duck. Death threats are as common as suits screaming 'run for your lives!' at the approach of a cessna to said "city of sin". I've entertained a few threats (best read in the styles of Sylvester or Elmer Fudd voices BTW) and you know, after the breaking news its not so bad. Guns and grief growl around aplenty, but their alarming lack of remote controls have been known to foil the operatives of the Master Emailer ("what bombs at midnight!") Heroic villains aside, threats are best considered in context and capacity. Emails are notoriously off-the-cuff and it'd be neat if gmail offered a "waiting period" option for people so inclided to withdraw a misintended missive, say, a day later. In any regards, my regards gentlemen, Keith P.S. - Any frustrations or suggestions regarding the planned Apocalypse are kindly redirected to the Bureaucracy of Ennui-Affected Story Tellers.

I know randy and he has mental problems. he was in virginia looking for work. he said he was bored and did this as a joke just for fun. i think he should get at least 5 yr probation for this. any comments??

to people who dont think this diot should get in any trouble for this..... what if the naacp took this threat to heart even a little as they should and had to pay for extra security on that day. shouldnt this guy at least have to pay? someway? somehow? if he doesnt have any money make him clean the bathrooms at naacp headquarters.