IMO Banning Those Who Make Threats of Violence is Not a Good Idea.

Thursday, February 11, 2021

Earlier today, ATS Administrator "Djarums" posted an advisory/warning regarding ATS members making verbal threats.

Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


If "something" happens, and an ATS member is responsible, isn't it better for the FBI if they can see as much of the ATS member's posting history as possible?

It seems to me if there is a member determined to commit violence, he/she should be allowed to spew as much evidence as they want to. Evidence that will assist law enforcement in getting that person (and maybe others) rounded up....maybe even before the act of violence is committed.

Just my 2-cents, for what its worth.

-CareWeMust

It is. This is a CT discussion board.

Barely....

a reply to: carewemust

Their posts could also serve as an early warning.

originally posted by: carewemust
If "something" happens, and an ATS member is responsible, isn't it better for the FBI if they can see as much of the ATS member's posting history as possible?

Your posting history doesn't disappear when you get banned. It's still available either in the main forums or in the Mod Forum so no worries.

That warning has been there for a while

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: carewemust

Their posts could also serve as an early warning.

They already are. Ideas aren’t dangerous.

Implementation of them through violence is

Endorsing it too

Political violence is considered Terrorism....

a reply to: carewemust

I dunno, the thing is 90% of people making threats of violence will be lying. Meaning the board will quickly be cluttered up with empty violent threats that likely won't amount to much recourse legally but will drastically decrease the quality of ats.

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: carewemust

Their posts could also serve as an early warning.

There's all kinds of reasons why dumb violent people should be allowed to speak their mind. Early intervention is indeed one of the reasons.

a reply to: carewemust

Agreed but then again how do we know it wouldn't be a CIA fbi type plant that spews all that to try to get people to agree. And then plan to act out some fantasy just to be rounded up by the very person who was instigating it.

I dont know carewemust it could be a good or bad thing either way.

On a side note I dont wanna hang out places where people can openly make threats at everyone else with no consequences.

Just my thoughts on why a.t.s is still one of my favorite sites. The mods are good and most members are good people.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: carewemust
If "something" happens, and an ATS member is responsible, isn't it better for the FBI if they can see as much of the ATS member's posting history as possible?

You're posting history doesn't disappear when you get banned. It's still available either in the main forums or in the Mod Forum so no worries.

I understand. I'm referring to evidence that can accumulate after the initial "threat" is made. It could take months for the person to commit the act. Evidence can accumulate in posts during those months.

a reply to: carewemust

Why would this site want to expose themselves to potential liability because some unhinged asshole is planning to act violently?

originally posted by: Ohanka
That warning has been there for a while

Admin "bumped" it to the top of the forum this morning. I didn't see it when it was originally posted last month.

originally posted by: carewemust
Admin "bumped" it to the top of the forum this morning. I didn't see it when it was originally posted last month.

They bump it nearly every day.

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: carewemust

I dunno, the thing is 90% of people making threats of violence will be lying. Meaning the board will quickly be cluttered up with empty violent threats that likely won't amount to much recourse legally but will drastically decrease the quality of ats.

Every time a bomb goes off, or a person is killed, Law Enforcement begin scouring social media for clues about the suspect(s).

There will be fewer clues, if every Social Media platform banned the bomber/shooter after his initial threat was made.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: carewemust

Why would this site want to expose themselves to potential liability because some unhinged asshole is planning to act violently?

The old days of a handsome $$Reward$$ for having evidence leading to an arrest, are gone?

Please review the notification at this link regarding threats.

The policy is not up for debate.

Thread closed.

Hey all,

Generally speaking when an "across the board" policy note like that has been posted it's been run by the legal minds that are responsible for protecting ATS and posted as a result of those concerns/opinions.

I understand and appreciate all feedback but the singular goal involved in the post I made is the protection of ATS. Other factors exist, I get that, but that's not my place to deal with. We're not law enforcement and we're not in the business of building profiles of people who may or may not be real threats. None of us are qualified to determine which maniacal threat of violence is a harmless keyboard warrior having a bad day and which is a real threat.

It is by that logic that the note was posted. We protect ATS. Simple as that.

Thanks for understanding. As stated above this policy will absolutely not be changed under any circumstances.