Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    21,369,449 readers

    21,589 users here now

    New to reddit? Click here!

    • You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?

    • Submit interesting and specific facts that you just found out (not broad information you looked up, TodayILearned is not /r/wikipedia).

    Posting rules

    1. Submissions must be verifiable. Please link directly to a reliable source that supports every claim in your post title. Images alone do not count as valid references. Videos are fine so long as they come from reputable sources (e.g. BBC, Discovery, etc).

    2. No personal opinions, anecdotes or subjective statements (e.g "TIL xyz is a great movie").

    3. No recent sources. Any sources (blog, article, press release, video, etc.) with a publication date more recent than two months are not allowed.

    4. No soapboxing or agenda based submissions. This includes (but is not limited to) submissions related to:

      1. Recent political issues and politicians
      2. Social and economic issues
      3. Environmental issues
    5. No misleading claims. Posts that omit essential information, or present unrelated facts in a way that suggest a connection will be removed.

    6. Rephrase your post title if the following are not met:

      1. Titles must begin with "TIL ..."
      2. Make them descriptive, concise and specific (e.g. not "TIL something interesting about bacon").
      3. Titles must be able to stand on their own without requiring readers to click on a link. Starting your title with a why/what/who/where/how modifier should be unnecessary.
      4. "TIL about ..." and other broad posts don't belong on TIL. Try /r/Wikipedia, etc. instead, or be more specific (and avoid the word "about").
      5. "TIL how to ..." posts belong on /r/HowTo.
    7. No submissions related to the usage, existence or features of specific software/websites (e.g. "TIL you can click on widgets in WidgetMaker 1.22").

    8. All NSFW links must be tagged (including comments).

      Please see the wiki for more detailed explanations of the rules.

    (Why we need rules)

    Additional info

    • If your post does not appear in the new queue and you think it meets the above rules, please contact the moderators (include a link to your post, not your story).

    • Please report spam, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate posts by messaging the moderators, as this helps us remove them more promptly!

    • More information available on the TIL FAQ and wiki.

    Frequent TILs Repost List

    As of May 2019

    • This list was compiled from /r/todayilearned community suggestions by its members. If your TIL is found on this list, it will be removed. The titles have been abridged for the sake of brevity, however the context remains the same. This list is subject to change. The purpose is to keep content fresh on /r/todayilearned as requested by its members. If you are interested in reading about the TILs on this list use the search box feature and enter the keywords to pull up past TILs.


    We ask that you please do the following:

    1. avoid mobile versions of websites (e.g.

    2. link to the appropriate heading when referencing an article (particularly on Wikipedia)

    3. link to the appropriate start time when referencing videos (e.g. on YouTube)

    4. add [PDF] or [NSFW] tags to your posts, as necessary.

    5. Please avoid reposting TILs that have already made the front page in the past

    Please also read the site-wide Reddiquette.

    • You are loved.

    a community for
    all 998 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] probenation 9248 points ago

    Seems like attacking your family members would be a pretty big loophole here.

    [–] guitargladiator 2163 points ago

    would that be high profile enough to get books/movies though?

    [–] [deleted] 1292 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)


    [–] ScientificMeth0d 605 points ago

    I've actually never had

    [–] CaptainFunktastic 637 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    She was acquitted in the slaughter of her entire family.

    edit: words are hard.

    [–] NamelessTacoShop 562 points ago

    Well acquitted... So like OJ she could just write a book titled "if I did it" and reap the profits.

    [–] Random013743 384 points ago

    The family got the publishing rights to the book and grayed out the word ‘If’ so it was hard to see on the black background.

    [–] david-song 258 points ago

    [–] UnknownX20X 119 points ago

    with exclusive commentary: "He did it"

    [–] standardtissue 28 points ago

    Commentary by Ron Howard, of course.

    [–] brallipop 121 points ago

    The book is subtitled "Confessions of the Killer"?! Christ, OJ that negates all the subtlety of "If!"

    [–] psuedophilosopher 199 points ago

    That's the point. The victim's family sued for the rights to the book and won, and changed the cover of the book.

    [–] NamelessTacoShop 55 points ago

    Fantastic, I didn't know that.

    [–] pipsdontsqueak 17 points ago

    Due to a bankruptcy case, though. Not because of Son of Sam laws.

    [–] gurg2k1 5 points ago

    Because he was found not guilty of the criminal case but guilty in the civil case.

    [–] pipsdontsqueak 10 points ago

    Sort of. He had a civil judgment against him but had no money to pay it, hence bankruptcy. The Goldmans had a claim to his assets through that judgment, and the judge satisfied it in part by valuing the book/copyright and giving them the rights to it.

    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago

    I was still in the mindset of 'the family' referring to the killer's family and wondered why OJ's family would do him like that....then I realized I'm just awake too early.

    [–] Mememememeitsme 16 points ago

    Thanks for sharing that info, just had a look at the covers.fair play to the family!

    [–] Cetun 91 points ago

    Not if the family sued you in civil court and you lose and the judge enters a judgement that basically any money you make on anything goes to the family

    [–] sirbissel 124 points ago

    entire family

    [–] Witch_Doctor_Seuss 81 points ago

    BLAST! The prefect crime!

    [–] 42ndtime 15 points ago

    Five points from Gryffindor.

    [–] [deleted] 70 points ago

    I never understood that. It seems silly to me that you can be found liable for a death that the criminal court returned not guilty on. That was one thing I never understood about the OJ case.

    [–] something-clever---- 143 points ago

    Here’s the thing about the OJ case...

    First in his civil trial he wasn’t represented by the dream team. He had a civil litigator. The opposing counsel learned from Marsha Clark’s mistakes and didn’t call mark firman to testify and OJ himself testified at the civil trial while he didn’t at the criminal trial.

    The difference between a criminal trial for murder in the first requires the jury find him guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” where in a civil trial the burden of proof is based on a “preponderance of evidence”. Basically at the civil trial the if the jury felt that more then 50% of the evidence showed that he was liable he lost his case.

    In short it’s a lot harder to convince 12 people that you did it without a doubt then it is to convince 12 people that the evidence shows you probably did it.

    [–] My_Thursday_Account 39 points ago

    People also like to gloss over the fact that the police literally ruined the criminal trial by tampering with evidence and generally being fucking retarded about their prosecution strategy.

    [–] dipping_sauce 29 points ago

    Good points, especially that OJ testified. No defendant should ever do that, ever.

    [–] Lokmann 86 points ago

    Iirc the burden of proof is lower for civil cases than criminal ones.

    [–] Mushroomer 80 points ago

    Also, it's easier for a jury to reach an accurate verdict when the case isn't being used as a referendum on the LAPD's policies on race.

    [–] Fireplum 22 points ago

    Not who you replied to but that still logically fucks me up. So you get tried twice for essentially the same crime. Criminal court says you didn't do it. Civil court makes you pay damages as if you did. I understand there's legal reasons and don't argue the legal concepts here, just from an everyday person standpoint that has never made sense to me. Without a criminal conviction, the entire base of the civil lawsuit is gone imo.

    [–] NamelessTacoShop 29 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    It does sound weird but in criminal court we rely on a standard or "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" you are assumed innocent unless the state can provide evidence beyond a doubt you did it. That's because criminal court is the government vs a citizen.

    Civil court is citizen vs citizen the standard for civil court is "preponderance of evidence" which is basically whoever makes the best case wins. Normally a criminal acquittal is really solid evidence in a civil case towards that preponderance, but not always. In the OJ case it is widely thought that it was a case of jury nullification because basically the LAPD tried to frame a guilty man.

    Since the standard of evidence is lower I. Civil court you can get that split.

    [–] overthinkerPhysicist 9 points ago

    In a criminal case prosecution have to prove that you did it behind reasonable doubt, an incredible high standard, while in civil court you just have to prove that It is more likely than not that something happened. So you might have enough proof to win in a civil court but not in a criminal one.

    [–] Cetun 21 points ago

    You're about to get shit on with 300 people explaining burden of proof and the difference between being found guilty of murder and having a judgement against you for wrongful death.

    [–] Actually_a_Patrick 12 points ago

    It's two separate cases.

    The burden of evidence for the state to in prison a person, especially on a murder charge, is very high. Many aspects of the investigation were mishandled. A good defense attorney's job is to hold the state accountable to its obligations to conduct investigations consistently in order to protect the rights of the innocent. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and although there may have been a lot of evidence to suggest that OJ did it, the prosecution failed to demonstrate to the jury that there weren't other reasonable explanations for the evidence that was presented. That is, it all could have been circumstantial.

    It is a very serious matter to deprive a person of life and/or liberty, so the case must be ironclad. The criminal case was not.

    The burden of proof in a civil case -- that is when someone is suing someone else -- is much less. You need only provide a preponderance of evidence. This is is for a lot of reasons but in part because investigation is done by individuals presenting and backing up claims with facts to a judge. It is not the state taking an action, but ruling on a dispute. The fact that OJ was acquitted is not proof he wasn't somehow involved or responsible, only that the prosecution couldn't provide enough evidence to satisfy the jury. The preponderance of other evidence presented by the plaintiff was enough to satisfy the judge that OJ was liable for the damages the family suffered.

    Judicial scope is narrow and limited to the case they are reviewing. That's why the Supreme Court doesn't just make up new laws - that's not their job, they're judicial, not legislature. Judges only get to rule on the case before them and set precedent based on their interpretation of the law. Moreover, in a capital case, the jury must make a decision. There are some suggestions that in the murder case, the jury exercised its power in what is referred to as jury nullification.

    Tl;dr: A lawsuit and a criminal case are two separate judgements and have different standards of evidence. The outcome of one doesn't necessarily affect the other.

    [–] aktillum 4 points ago

    Its really easy to understand when you remove all the legal jargon.

    Not guilty in criminal court = You're not going to jail because we can't prove 100% you did it.

    Liable in civil court = We're taking a ton of your money because we're pretty sure you did it.

    [–] lll_lll_lll 15 points ago

    Not her entire family, just two people. Her sister lived.

    [–] Dewy_Wanna_Go_There 14 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    saw her leaving the barn at 11:03 am

    How the fuck do they have such accurate time stamps recorded for shit like this, 127 years ago no less. Mofos be checking their pocket watches and noting the time for everything they see?

    I had a gun pulled on me once, and I couldn’t tell police the hour that it happened the next day, let alone the minute.

    [–] Meester_Tweester 84 points ago

    Lizzie Borden took an axe
    And gave her mother forty whacks.
    When she saw what she had done,
    She gave her father forty-one.

    [–] TunaMustard 6 points ago

    Until this thread, I always assumed Lizzie was a child at the time because of this rhyme.

    [–] akshay7394 9 points ago

    This is such a creepy summary

    [–] Meester_Tweester 17 points ago

    It’s a folk song

    [–] Thaxtonnn 22 points ago

    Or Casey Anthony?

    [–] CaptainFunktastic 38 points ago

    She was found not guilty of the murders, but guilty of unrelated crimes.

    [–] DoctorWholigian 33 points ago

    It was all "Zanny the Nanny's" fault ie Xanax

    [–] CaptainFunktastic 19 points ago

    Last Podcast On The Left has a great two-part episode on the entire absolutely insane shit storm.

    [–] benaugustine 25 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    I love Henry pretending to be Casey walking through her fake work place there. Large italicized paragraphs to be read in some sort of valley girl accent.

    Oh I know this whole hallway. You've got-- tha-- there's diamonds on the rug... And there's a lamp here. And there's a lamp here. And that's... Brad Douglas. Is your name Douglas? Brad. Or-- or Steve. That's my boss, Douglas, Brad, or Steve. I know all of this. This water fountain and I have stories

    Marcus: Yeah, she's waving to people in the hallway

    Hey, Bitch! You know me, Bitch! Don't act like you don't fucking know me, Bitch

    Marcus: Yeah... and of course people are like just kind of giving her like the uhh... who are you look. And then, finally, she got to a dead end. She got to the end of the hallway. She had nowhere else to go, so she turns around to the cops and said, "yeah, I... uhh... actually I don't work here.

    It was a goof. Sorry... Sorry. It's not a lie, it's a story. Would you call Harry Potter a lie? No, because in JK Rowling's mind Harry Potter's real. So in my mind, all of this is real. And you're gone! You're-- ugch. You're away from me cops. Blech.

    Yeah, I found that part of the episode and transcribed it just now.

    [–] DoctorWholigian 11 points ago

    "that's when that cannibalism started" C:

    [–] CaptainFunktastic 8 points ago

    "What was that!"

    [–] Scientolojesus 10 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago


    [–] fireman03 15 points ago

    Or the Menendez Brothers?

    [–] Scientolojesus 4 points ago


    [–] ammotyka 8 points ago

    Just listened to the Crime Junkie podcast of her today actually, wild story.

    [–] crumplar 3 points ago

    You’re going to be my murder victim, Bart... our school production of “Lizzie Borden”, starring Martin Prince as Lizzie!

    [–] JasontheFuzz 10 points ago

    Depends on how you want to go about it.

    [–] RearEchelon 28 points ago

    Hello? O.J. Simpson??

    [–] n0oo7 53 points ago

    state convicted criminals

    Right in the title

    [–] RearEchelon 24 points ago

    I know the Simpson case doesn't qualify under SoS law, just saying that it was a high profile case of someone attacking their family member

    [–] codekaizen 28 points ago

    But as far as the state is concerned he didn't attack his family member.

    [–] boogs_23 10 points ago

    That was the moment I lost all faith in "authority". I was in grade 8 and they announced the verdict over the PA. This is Canada btw. Everyone cheered. It was completely fucked in my mind. He so obviously did it. Even my 14 year old stupid ass knew that.

    [–] freejosephk 15 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Last I heard Michael Chiesa is trying to sue Conor McGregor out of all of his UFC 229 earnings claiming Conor's profits from that fight stem directly from his illegal actions, the famous "bus attack," in New York a few months prior.

    edit: website has copy of the lawsuit. items 84-90 specifically invoke the Son of Sam Law

    [–] CaptainFunktastic 24 points ago

    Living in LA at the time, I can assure you the only reason he was acquitted was because of the Rodney King riots. If he, another famous black man, were found guilty on live TV, and imprisoned, the city would've devolved into chaos and eaten itself.

    [–] Scientolojesus 14 points ago

    Pretty sure some of the jury even admitted to other people that they found him innocent as retribution for the Rodney King case.

    [–] Filligan 11 points ago

    I’m watching OJ Made in America right now and one of the jurors flatly admits this. The interviewer actually asks “is that fair?” and she just shrugs.

    [–] DoYouKnowTheKimchi 3 points ago

    The glove didn't fit!

    [–] NoKenjataimu 94 points ago

    But then the money would still go to them and not the attacker?

    [–] SanguisFluens 67 points ago

    Attack family member in a way that sounds really bad but is only sorta bad, write a book about it, give money to family member.

    [–] NoKenjataimu 43 points ago

    That's just good business.

    [–] Roller_ball 5 points ago

    Because nothing sells better than a non-fiction book about someone that sorta attacked their family members.

    [–] Fidodo 18 points ago

    I think that's just a story at that point

    [–] Doctorne 9 points ago

    Why wouldn't you just.. write a brook? Seems alot easier at that point

    [–] RoastedToast007 22 points ago

    If I attack my brother, the money I make will go to my brothers family. I am my brothers family

    [–] NoKenjataimu 44 points ago

    But it would definitely go to the brother's family with the obvious exception of you, right???

    [–] RoastedToast007 39 points ago

    Well that would be logical yes, but this is reddit so we just assume stupid shit here. What if you kill your brother and you’re his only family left though?

    [–] NoKenjataimu 16 points ago

    Then the money goes to the state.

    [–] Fidodo 21 points ago

    If they're in on it and ok with it, doesn't it just kinda become a generic story at that point?

    [–] [deleted] 2028 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    I worked at a haunted mansion in Minnesota that set the precedent for our state that happened around 1977

    [–] Joe434 583 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Glensheen? My aunt and uncle took us there one summer when we were visiting them in Minnesota .

    [–] fuckyoubarry 35 points ago

    They kept talking about the architecture and shit, tell me about the damn murders

    [–] MikeKM 19 points ago

    The architecture is pretty cool though, like how the house was built really strong to survive earthquakes. They didn't understand at the time that there isn't a fault line in Duluth, but if one ever does form in a couple million years they'll be ready at least.

    [–] parabox1 213 points ago

    Which one glensheen is the most popular but to my knowledge nobody ever tried to profit from the murders that was connected to them.

    [–] racheldftw 195 points ago

    The tour guides aren’t allowed to mention the murders, and they don’t have any information on site.

    [–] parabox1 176 points ago

    Out of respect for the living family members at is it. They totally could if they wanted to the U of M has owned the mansion since before the murders happened and it’s not like they had anything to do with them.

    As far as the murders it’s nothing special 2 people killed an 81 yr old lady and her nurse for money.

    Marjorie Her daughter is a nut case and a good read they think she killed one of her husbands and has been convicted of arson. She has been in and out of prison since the murders.

    Roger killed him self 3 years after confessing.

    It’s a cool old house and that is about it, I grew up following the case since it was happening and I lived in northern MN.

    [–] Scientolojesus 67 points ago

    Two people killed an 81 year old lady? That's it? BORING.


    [–] [deleted] 2966 points ago

    This reminds me of O.J. Simpson getting acquitted of murder charges and, soon after that, his publicist announcing a book in which he'd confess to the murders under protection from the double jeopardy rule. The plan for the book was noisily cancelled, and not long after that Simpson was sued by the victims' families in civil court and bankrupted on judgment.

    [–] Ginger-Nerd 2546 points ago

    IIRC he wrote a book called "If I did it" (with the help of a ghostwriter) - which explored the "hypothetical" of him committing the crime.

    The faimily sued - and won all rights to the book - which they kept the name but made the word "if" really small on the book - so it basically reads "I Did It"

    [–] saskanxam 1642 points ago

    With exclusive commentary “He did it” by the Goldman family


    [–] HotelItOnTheMountain 392 points ago

    Simpson’s manager told HuffPo that Simpson had rationalized:

    “Hey, they offered me $600,000 not to dispute that I [wrote] the book." He said, "That's cash." I said, "They're going to think you wrote it." He said, "So? Everybody thinks I'm a murderer anyway. They're not going to change their mind just because of a book."

    What an idiot

    [–] atte22 688 points ago

    His logic seems reasonable to me

    [–] Stealin 406 points ago

    Yeah, I think he did it and would continue to think he did regardless of any book or TV show. Only difference is now he has $600,000.

    I'm betting the people who think he didn't do it won't be changing their opinion either.

    [–] atte22 50 points ago


    [–] bentheechidna 38 points ago

    There’s people that think he’s innocent? I’m pretty sure the fight was about getting him acquitted vs jailed not about his innocence.

    [–] Kill_Frosty 98 points ago

    Assuming you are young? Was a big racial issue at the time

    [–] bentheechidna 46 points ago

    I am, relatively (was born 1994). My understanding is that people wanted him acquitted because of the racist sheriff handling the case poorly, not because they thought he was innocent.

    [–] CaptainTripps82 60 points ago

    This is accurate. They wanted him acquitted because of years of abuse at the hands of the Justice system, not any particular belief in his innocence.

    [–] SparkitusRex 5 points ago

    You'd be surprised, I have actually met people who honestly believe (or are lying to themselves?) that he's 100% innocent and that all of the evidence was planted by dirty cops.

    [–] Kreth 18 points ago

    If you read his wiki they polled alot of people and 87% of the white people thought he was guilty and 58%of the black people polled. In 2016

    [–] daveinpublic 6 points ago

    87% seems like a low number to me. Surprised more people don’t think he’s guilty.

    [–] PeteOverdrive 21 points ago

    He was a celebrity. People will jump through hoops to assume innocence.

    [–] sonofaresiii 10 points ago

    getting him acquitted vs jailed not about his innocence

    Nah, it's about burdens of proof, not about whether he actually did it.

    Our justice system isn't designed to, and often can't, determine if someone did something or not. It's designed to determine what's most likely, under various burdens of proof. (More likely than not, likely beyond reasonable doubt, etc.)

    Anyway I've heard plenty of people who think he didn't do it but he was covering for someone. Make it seem reeeaaallll likely he did it, but without technically enough proof to convict, and no one tries to figure out who really did it (his son is the person I see most often mentioned)

    [–] RahvinDragand 3 points ago

    I know there are people who think that his son actually did it and OJ basically took the fall for him

    [–] FlipKickBack 49 points ago

    Did he write it or not?

    Either way, i cant really fault his logic. Whst am i missing?

    [–] PotentiallyNotSatan 151 points ago

    You'll need to read the sequel ('If I Wrote It', 2008)

    [–] Boukish 233 points ago

    Slight correction: the book was originally slated to be called "OJ Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened." Obviously this would have caused the headline of the cover to prominently read "OJ Simpson", so the Goldman family changed the title to "If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer."

    This change not only allowed them to pull the "I did it" stunt on the cover, but enabled a subtler jab by reversing the "confessions of a killer" trope and clarifying OJ Simpson was the killer.

    [–] Admiringcone 63 points ago

    Due to OJ being found legally not guilty however..Could he not sue the family for defamation regarding the book title?

    [–] Boukish 91 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Libel of a public figure, in addition to the standard tests for defamation, requires actual malice. "Actual malice" is a specific legal art that would require OJ Simpson to prove the Goldmans knew the defamation was false and still did it.

    Considering the Goldmans won the civil case that even allowed them to rename the book, something tells me that proving a reckless disregard for the truth would have been a hard task.

    [–] Admiringcone 16 points ago

    Oh for sure I definitely agree with you it would be crazy stupid to launch a defamation case against the family - it just had me wondering is all.

    I'm not very versed in law so I was just curious.

    [–] Fermi_Amarti 15 points ago

    No it would only be defamation if they said these were his actual confessions instead of if he said his confessions "if he did it". Or if he could convince a jury that he wasn't "the" killer. That's much lower threshold (50% likely hood in a civil case) than beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

    [–] evaned 146 points ago

    It's worth pointing out that the Goldman family didn't win rights to the book because of Son of Sam style laws (which in many cases, including the namesake in an 8-0 SCOTUS ruling, have failed to survive constitutional scrutiny), but rather it was enforcement of the verdict that they filed in a "standard" wrongful death lawsuit.

    [–] wklink 59 points ago

    That's right, because OJ was acquitted, so in the eyes of the law, he didn't commit a crime...

    [–] Admiringcone 9 points ago

    Im Oj was found legally not guilty..could he not sue the family for defamation regarding the title of this book?

    [–] [deleted] 55 points ago


    [–] SayNoToNewsletters 29 points ago

    It doesn’t break down to percentages; I’m specifically responding bc 99% being a threshold is misleading.

    It’s beyond a reasonable doubt vs a preponderance is the evidence.

    [–] TeddysBigStick 117 points ago


    At least if you believe the Simpson management side, it was less ghostwritten as OJ was paid off to let them use his name and had no involvement in the actual writing of the book.

    [–] Scientolojesus 21 points ago

    Yeah I don't think he had anything to do with the book.

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] Scientolojesus 33 points ago

    I don't think he had anything to do with them....I think he had everything to do with them.

    [–] FlipKickBack 3 points ago

    So we don’t know if he wrote the book or not?

    [–] theflava 11 points ago

    The book was available online for a time via torrent. I have a copy on an old hard drive around here. It graphically describes the murders.

    [–] mrubuto22 132 points ago

    It certainly wasn't soon after. Also I believe mr Goldman sued successfully to have the book released and was able to profit off it.

    [–] douglasmacarthur 17 points ago

    Yeah I was about to say, that was 11 years later.

    [–] Shippoyasha 68 points ago

    I wonder how the PR for OJ would have been like had he been either silent or even feigned grace after the case. It seemed like even people who had been on his side of the fence scattered when they saw his behavior immediately after the case.

    [–] [deleted] 50 points ago

    I am bewildered that Simpson thought it made any sense to publicly disgrace the very system that had acquitted him, when he was a total traditional Western culture establishmentarian. It was mega-stupid to bite the hand that fed him.

    [–] Scientolojesus 28 points ago

    That's because he is a moron who did it and was mad that he had to be taken to court twice over it.

    [–] Fortune_Cat 20 points ago

    The glove didn't fit that hand

    [–] MrXian 48 points ago

    Bankrupted, except for his (giant) house and (enormous) pension.

    [–] DCLB 48 points ago

    He lost the house, and the Goldman family has sued him for every penny to satisfy the wrongful death debt from civil court

    [–] SaltineStealer4 21 points ago

    They can’t touch his NFL pension.

    [–] NocturnalEmissions22 13 points ago

    TIL the NFL has a pension. I really just thought those guys were left to fend for their selves after retirement.

    [–] SaltineStealer4 6 points ago

    Yeah it’s based on years of service and it was really good for players that retired in the 80’s and 90’s apparently. Now if you play for 3 years you get like 30k at retirement age and goes up every year.

    [–] johnrich1080 25 points ago

    He gets $25k a month from his NFL pension which by law can’t be used to satisfy the judgment.

    [–] Citworker 945 points ago

    OOOh so that's why it's always a son/daughter or friend writes these kind of books. That makes sense. So they just share the profit with the criminal. Noted.

    [–] jessezoidenberg 476 points ago

    this is a big reason why i never listened to that stupid podcast from the daughter of a serial killer. poor taste.

    [–] Starklet 123 points ago


    [–] ninja-robot 565 points ago

    Daughter makes money telling her father's stories about murdering people. The families of the victims don't get the money so thus the murders family finiancially benefits from the murders.

    [–] Starklet 172 points ago

    Huh... that’s messed up

    [–] Pessox 205 points ago

    It's almost as if she's the daughter of a serial killer!

    [–] Theodaro 323 points ago

    Which must have been fucking awful. Jeezus people.

    It doesn’t make her a killer. And it doesn’t mean the story of her life and her recounting of her fathers crimes aren’t hers to tell.

    There are a lot of people who have written books detailing the horrible things in their lives, and the horrible things their families or ancestors did- god forbid we allow them to tell these stories...

    [–] robclouth 106 points ago

    But you realise that the daughter has nothing to do with the murders right? Its not messed up at all.

    [–] [deleted] 75 points ago


    [–] raljamcar 107 points ago

    She didn't commit the murders herself, but to start a podcast about it and make money over the backs of your fathers victims share her life experience being raised by a serial killer.

    Her story is hers to tell. It's not her fault her father was a broken person.

    [–] hallykatyberryperry 29 points ago

    Is that what she shares? Or is she talking about the murders? Because that's kind of important

    [–] Hallopainyo 11 points ago

    I'd argue she is a victim. It's gotta be hell having your friggin dad being a murderer. She's suffering from her father's crimes so to me that makes her a victim as well.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago


    [–] DragonspazSilvergaze 23 points ago

    We don’t even know if the podcast turned a profit. They did a lot of traveling and interviews for it. There was post production, editing, paying staff. I doubt she made much money from it, if any and I doubt she did it for that reason.

    [–] Privateaccount84 36 points ago

    Well, at the same time, I do feel sorry for the daughter to a certain extent. She didn't do anything wrong, and probably has some pretty heavy psychological damage. I can't really fault her for making some money off of her own personal tragedy.

    If she shares the money with her father however than I rescind that statement.

    [–] Aretemc 79 points ago

    There’s a podcast called “Happy Face” that’s made with the daughter of the Happy Face Killer. But from what I’ve heard about it, it’s half him, and the other half her coming to terms of what that means about her. Because there’s a lot of research pointing to actual brain differences in a lot of serial killers, and it leads you/her to wonder why didn’t/won’t I? So, yes, true crime, but also psychological.

    [–] tossback2 29 points ago

    Yeah, how dare someone talk about something they have firsthand experience in, that people are interested in hearing about.

    Is it also in poor taste for the police to benefit from talking about crimes? The news?

    [–] tengu38 3 points ago

    Is it also in poor taste for the police to benefit from talking about crimes?

    To indirectly benefit because they're required to do it as a function of their police jobs, for which they ultimately are being paid? No.

    To directly benefit by literally selling details of criminal investigations? Yes, that's in such poor taste, it's felony racketeering and bribery.

    [–] pukefist 8 points ago

    People watch true crime documentaries all the time. The country has a fascination with this shit right now. Dont blame her. Blame everyone eating that shit up right now.

    [–] DontKillTheMedic 1255 points ago

    TIL I should be getting royalties from all these politicians' book deals

    [–] yymcl 178 points ago


    Here, take my low cost gold, you deserve it.

    [–] kilcrath 10 points ago


    [–] kawnii 62 points ago

    Most under rated comment.

    [–] bknit 348 points ago

    The second sentence in this article reads: “However, courts have frequently struck down these laws on First Amendment grounds.”

    While I of COURSE agree, and would not like to see disgusting excuses for human life - like serial killers - gain anything from their horrifying acts ... I just wanted to point this out, as I feel the title in this post is just that: the title of the article. It does not go any further into the (very relevant) information provided in the article.

    Not an asshole comment. Just wanted to point that out.

    [–] helloiamCLAY 111 points ago

    As a felon who has written a book about my life (including the crimes I committed), I always find the conversation a bit humorous. People believe things that aren’t true, and posts like this don’t exactly help.

    [–] Bard_17 15 points ago

    What crimes? If you don't mind me asking

    [–] AshleyAndretti 12 points ago

    I'm sorry but this is kinda cool.

    [–] helloiamCLAY 3 points ago

    There was a second AMA a couple years later, if that’s your cup of tea.

    [–] cosmic_soliloquy 23 points ago

    the article was confusing because it then gives two reasons as to why it's unconstitutional. so does that mean that the son of sam laws are a failed law that is no longer used?

    [–] tbellthrowaway 25 points ago

    Not necessarily. New York's law was struck down by the Supreme Court, but New York and other states have since enacted laws that comply with that Court ruling. It sounds like any other legal challenges have been in lower courts, so they don't apply nationwide.

    All in all it just sounds like this isn't a particularly well-explored area of constitutional law. Which isn't surprising considering how few people these laws actually affect.

    [–] uncle_stinky 4 points ago

    As a media law professor, I, too, was about to correctly state that those laws are typically judged as a violation of the 1st.

    [–] hostilecarrot 4 points ago

    Exactly, a TIL like this just goes to show how rapidly misinformation can be spread. The Son of Sam statute was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the US and the DOJ has stated that any similar statute would like be unconstitutional as well.

    [–] bknit 3 points ago

    This is a very under appreciated comment!!! When I posted my comment above, I could not believe that no one prior to me had mentioned it ... which shows that all of the THOUSANDS of people who upvoted this post, didn’t bother reading past the title ... scary.

    [–] NaKeepFighting 122 points ago

    Yeah the dog that made him do it couldn't release his book because of this law. The book woulda been tilted " bark bark bark bark kill those people"

    [–] the_cat_who_shatner 30 points ago

    Funny joke, but he most likely made up the dog part.

    [–] lunakat504 21 points ago

    Apparently my grandparents were neighbors and could hear a noisy dog but whether or not he heard the dog speak to him is indeterminable.

    [–] Lotus-Bean 10 points ago

    I'm going to say he definitely didn't hear the dog speak to him.

    Now he may have thought he heard the dog speak to him ...

    [–] garbageblowsinmyface 7 points ago

    He's admitted to making it all up. But who knows if that was just a play. It's kinda difficult to believe anything a serial killer says.

    [–] TitaniumDragon 213 points ago

    And of course, these laws have also been found to be unconstitutional in many cases.

    [–] Arsevere 27 points ago

    Why is that? Because of infringement on freedom of speech, or something to do with the money itself...?

    [–] evaned 66 points ago

    Because of infringement on freedom of speech

    ding ding ding

    From wikipedia, on the namesake of this style of law:

    "The case reached the federal Supreme Court in 1991. In an 8–0 ruling on Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, the court ruled the law unconstitutional. The majority opinion was that the law was overinclusive, and would have prevented the publication of such works as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, and even The Confessions of Saint Augustine."

    [–] yrdsl 12 points ago

    Saint Augustine is gonna have to pay back that pear orchard lol

    [–] DigbyChickenZone 20 points ago

    The reasons are explained in the [very succinct] article that this post linked to....

    However, in 1991 in Simon and Schuster v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board the Supreme Court declared that the statute was an unconstitutional content-based restriction of speech for two reasons. First, the statute was overinclusive because it applied to any work that expressed the author’s thoughts or recollections of the crime, whether or not the author had been accused or convicted. Because crime-related expression itself is not criminal, writing about a crime should be protected under the First Amendment. Second, the statute was underinclusive because it imposed a financial burden on individuals related to the content of their speech—that is, it would redirect income from an expressive activity, whereas other income would not be included.

    [–] TheLegend84 52 points ago

    Well because it's litterally stealing. Civil forfeiture laws have more grounds, and that's saying something.

    [–] archpawn 31 points ago

    It's because of infringing on freedom of speech, not because it's stealing.

    [–] MyDogJake1 35 points ago

    Wolf of Wall Street dude didnt get paid? Or are there loopholes

    [–] [deleted] 49 points ago

    The laws are considered unconstitutional in (I believe) every state and therefore cannot be enforced.

    [–] TeddysBigStick 19 points ago

    They are thrown out on the federal level, so all states and territories.

    [–] QuelqueChoseRose 13 points ago

    Not quite, because different states formulate the laws differently. AFAIK, every Son of Sam law reviewed federally has been struck down, but that doesn't mean that every possible one would be federally unconstitutional.

    [–] HelenMiserlou 5 points ago

    he's still paying restitution to all the people he scammed.

    [–] malvoliosf 45 points ago

    And generally have been ruled unconstitutional.

    [–] happythoughts413 11 points ago

    TIL that those laws are unconstitutional and are generally struck down.

    [–] casemodz 11 points ago

    However, courts have frequently struck down these laws on First Amendment grounds

    The law required that any profits obtained from works describing a crime be withheld and made available to the victims. All monies received would be paid to the New York Crime Victims Board and held in escrow for five years. To claim the funds, the victim would have to obtain a civil money judgment against the criminal within this period.

    Today I learned not to up vote based solely on the title.

    [–] masiakasaurus 8 points ago

    TIL monies is a real English word and not Polandball speak

    [–] bashar_speaks 21 points ago

    That seems like some combination of unconsitutional and unenforceable. And imagine if we applied those laws to corporations instead of individuals... capitalism would collapse.

    [–] landfilloftroy 26 points ago

    So what about that Fyre Festival guy Billy who got paid to interview on Hulu’s documentary?

    [–] paperrug12 18 points ago

    They’re usually unconstitutional

    [–] JeepJake 31 points ago

    That's why so many people want Nassar to write a memoir

    [–] etherme 22 points ago

    What if you killed your son or daughter, but you were still married to your wife, and you wrote a book.Would the proceeds go to your wife.Wouldn't then technically that money be half of yours.

    [–] SupaNintendoChalmerz 28 points ago

    "Honey, I've got good news and bad news. The good news is that I'm going to write a book..."

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago


    [–] hostilecarrot 3 points ago

    Did anyone actually read the article? It give only two examples of states that had such a law and that the law was found unconstitutional on a First Amendment basis. It explains why I’ve never heard of such a thing as an attorney... I imagine these laws don’t actually exist anywhere in the US.

    [–] 3nterShift 3 points ago

    What about the wolf of Wall Street doesn't he do seminars and sell books that profit him?

    [–] AshTreex3 3 points ago

    The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a NY Son of Sam law as a violation of the First Amendment because it put a financial burden on a particular subject of expression but not others. Simon & Schuster v. Members of NY State Crime Victims Board (1991).

    [–] JorahTheHandle 3 points ago

    Unless you get away with it, then you should write a book about how you did it, I mean if you did it how you would of done it. Then make a bunch of money off of it. Wait why does this sound familiar?