COMMUNICATING THREATS OF VIOLENCE ON ATS…

We all at some time or another have thought, if not said out loud, that we would like to inflict harm upon someone, and quite possibly kill them. This is a spur of the moment outburst that allows us some form of relief from stress and aggravation. ATS has not and will not tell any member or visitor what to think. ATS does have certain guidelines about what you can post, and as is clearly stated in the Terms & Conditions Of Use:

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

The bottom line is that no member can post content that communicates a threat towards another member, or to person(s) beyond ATS. This includes the ATS Chat, and U2U System. There is no joking about it, nor is acceptable for any reason. Put this issue in the same category as saying “bomb” at an airport.

This also applies to the candidates for political office as well as any sitting elected official. Politicians by nature inflame the passions of those that both support and oppose them. A threat of political assassination is a crime, and can afford you the opportunity to speak to government officials that you’d probably rather not meet. Please do not post content that infers the act or intent of assassination.

Threats, particularly threats that involve shootings are taken seriously at ATS. There have been innumerous threads about the tragic events that have surrounded mass shootings in schools, shopping malls and other public venues. These tragedies amplify the reason that communicating threats is not allowed under any circumstance. ATS is not a conduit for hate and violence and will not allow this type of content by any member. Posting the intention to shoot a person(s) and/or a place that people congregate will result in an immediate banning of that member’s account.

so you wundt find the ip of the person and take it further?

I would equate threatening someone thru a post or u2u the same as confronting someone via a telephone.All steam and bull**** that never goes any further.In reality it would be extremly hard to do bodily harm to someone over the internet.Decorum at all costs,tends to inhibit free exchange of ideas.

I'm curious if this threat would apply to someone vehemently posting that they will "sue you"

with U2U's saying "i will sue your *snip* for blasting my good name"


Would that constitute a violation as well?

in the realm of ATS that is...both publicly posting it and u2u's

I absolutely agree with this, there is no and I mean no reason to threaten anyones life. Especially on the internet. This is a serious issue. People may not know your joking around and may take you seriously. These things can be avoided if one chooses to not use threats even in a joking manner.

[edit on 8/28/2008 by whatukno]

I do agree that the threatening of ATS members by other members needs to stop. I feel that if something is not done about it soon, then maybe someone will get hurt and hurt badly. Here's the thing, we're going to have people threaten violence against other members no matter how hard The Administration tries to stop it. However, I do agree that something does need to be done before it eventually gets out of hand.

The thing is, we are still going to have people that come here with the attitude of "I'm right, you're wrong." As for people who threaten violence on the internet, "Get a friggin' life!"

[edit on 27-8-2008 by gimmefootball400]

I urge mods to recognize of the actual seriousness & responsibility. I believe strongly in such an act, it should be taken further to contact law enforcement officers as I believe the internet should not be a place to hide.

thank you.


[edit on 27-8-2008 by deathpoet69]

Threat Assessment

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
I'm curious if this threat would apply to someone vehemently posting that they will "sue you"

Using any ATS feature to communicate threats of any kind against anyone is a gross violation of the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use and grounds for immediate account termination.

If you encounter any such misuse of our services, please alert us by using the ALERT button or submitting a complaint and we will investigate.

Threats may be just blowing off steam but they may indicate far more serious problems. They do not belong on the inter-net no matter how much you want to let loose. If decorum is not a good reason then "big Brother is watching" certainly is. Here is the proof.

And I have often wondered why aliens won't come here to expose themselves as just that... this planet is violent. If you were coming from another planet with no violence and stopped by Earth, would you stick around... especially if you were being shot at by the military just trying to land? People are violent and cruel here on Earth and until we stop that, I think we'll be left in the dark by civilized species who are afraid to come here. One step forward and two steps back... look what Russia is doing? Not the direction we want to head in... loving, sharing, caring, and disagreeing without violence is where we want to go. Only in harmony will humans be prosperous; and being kind comes from the heart not the head. Peace to all you handsome sexy intelligent ATS Members who always get it right... this is definately not the forum for violence because that is the ball and chain that keeps our attention diverted and lagging behind those who are moving forward peacefully

reply to post by LunarLooney1


I believe it is really sick that people would threaten others for their opinions or say their I.Q. was lowered after reading someones thread. The people that need help are the ones demeaning other members for their opinions and ideas.
No opinion and no idea from any member should be disrespected or threatened and anyone doing so should be banned.

At ATS, it's quite clear that that Terms & Conditions Of Use are the 'law'. Follow them.

Members would also do well to familiarize themselves with the laws and statutes of their particular counties. For US residents, I found this information particularly interesting:

The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.” In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment. The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,” it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity. During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.” The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....” Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg. . . . An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.” While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action, the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.” Source

It would appear that US law is more reasonable and liberal than I would have thought, with regard to threats of personal violence.

Holy cow! Come on,, let's don't add fuel to the fire lit by the Home-Grown Terror and Violent Radicalization Bill. It's just the interwebs...it's not personal..use your brains.

I swear, if some idiot blemishes ATS by making threats, I might just have to...oh wait...never mind.

Behave people.

Exactly... Why can't we all just get along?

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Holy cow! Come on,, let's don't add fuel to the fire lit by the Home-Grown Terror and Violent Radicalization Bill.

Primary (ATS) point: Yes, let's encourage a civil forum. Follow the rules!

PRIMARY point: The 'HGT&VR' bill only applies to that which is not Constitutionally protected. The scope of what is Constitutionally protected is vast. Don't let 'expedience' or some unseen threat limit what blood was shed to establish.

does this also apply to members who upon hearing of an horrific crime, go into detail of what they would do to the perpetrator if they got hold of them? i know emotions can run high sometimes but i find some of these posts almost as sickening as the crimes themselves.

I am glad ATS is recognizing this as a real problem.There have been several instances where someone(not gonna say who) actually made threats against the President.I am not a fan of his but you don't go around making threats like that much less on this forum.I asked them at the time to please stop and think and choose their words carefully because you never know when big brother is listening and watching.

Originally posted by deathpoet69
I urge mods to recognize of the actual seriousness & responsibility. I believe strongly in such an act, it should be taken further to contact law enforcement officers as I believe the internet should not be a place to hide.

thank you.
[edit on 27-8-2008 by deathpoet69]

Well for your sake, let's hope they don't take things that far! It could put you in a very awkward situation.

This thread shows how we citizens in America have to be afraid of what our own government can do to us.

A nation when the people fear their own for the people elected government is a nation that not longer have a government working for its people.

Interesting.

While in not way it should be allowed any type of threats to other members.

But when it comes to politics that is another issue, is many people in America that is fed up with the politics of this nation.

Sometimes is hard no to express disappointment without anger, that is human nature.

I bet that many people that claim to see any political candidate death has nothing to do with personal violence against that particular candidate.

But as our own government said we have homegrown terrorist everywhere and every body can be one of them.

This what we have allowed America to become.

Pity big brother is now watching you. so be very afraid.