A question regarding shooting sprees (and threads thereof)

I noticed that a thread regarding fantasy shooting sprees in IMHO was quickly closed.
In no way am I advocating shooting sprees, killing people, or violence in any form.
My question lies more in the freedom of speech issues contained. It is my understanding that even making a verbal threat can be cause for potential incarceration and that recently in California persons have been arrested for publishing (via websites) threats of terrorist activities. My question is was the thread closed for any of the following reasons:

(1) Inappropriate subject for IMHO (a rated NC-17 topic in a PG-13 board)

(2) Inappropriate topic for The Straight Dope (certainly understandable)

(3) Illegal topic (as noted above)

  • Second disclaimer, I do not support or endorse the ideas speculated on in that thread, merely I aqm seeking clarification as to why the thread was closed.*

I was the one that closed the thread. There was no specific reason why I did, but in general, these type of thread tend to be more problematical to police. We have to keep asking ourselves … was the poster serious? Is this something that’s going to bounce back on the board if something indeed does happen? Would it make the Reader liable?

In effect it was a pre-emptive closing because of the general problems these kind of threads can cause.

Well, I am not a mod or owner of this board but I will make the following assumption.

This is a privately owned and moderated forum. In no way is it “obligated” to be an outlet for “free speech”. It is not funded by you or the public. If the operators choose to moderate it, so be it. If people don’t like it, they can post elsewhere.

That is just my opinion and may be totally off base though :slight_smile:

Did we tell you that you could say that, bernse? :wink:

I started the thread in question, and it didn’t bother me at all that it was closed. If the Reader doesn’t want it online, shut 'er down. Nothing wrong with that.

In this case, it seemed like it was a mix of 2 and 3. It wasn’t exactly illegal, but it could have potentially gotten the Reader in a lot of trouble. There’ve been incidents of people posting similar subject matter to message boards and getting LOTS of unwanted attention.

Euty closed it down because he saw it first but FWIW I support his decision right down the line. And thanks, respect and gratitude to him for making the call.

It’s a hard old world and not just in terms of litigation. Wishing it were simpler doesn’t make it so. The OP (Rick Jay) was very specific casting it in fantasy terms but words matter–and kudos to him for being so reasonable and responsible about it. ::hearty handshake::

Words matter. IANAL but freedom of speech issues don’t apply here in the sense of “saying what you want in a public forum”. It’s public in the sense of lotsa people participating but it’s provided by a specific entity, i.e. The Reader. Fundie boards shut down atheists, political boards shut off opponents, etc.: name your opposing viewpoint. It happens all the time.

We try to draw lines with very broad brushstrokes but some things could run the boards into severe problems. Maybe it’s more a distinction than a difference, but it coulda been a great Pit rant IF rephrased somewhat, i.e. groups I wish condemned to the lowest reaches of Hell. But words matter. Ordinary people can’t banish folks to torture in the after-world but they CAN–and do–go on shooting sprees. The OP didn’t intend a problem and we don’t want to stifle free-wheeling opinion.

Don’t intend to bust your chops for asking, because it’s a good question. But freedom of speech per se applies to governmental censorship. We’re loose and jazzed around here but once in a while dreary common sense and caution kick in.

But hey, it isn’t like we’re responsible adults very often.

Thanks again to Euty, bard in black leather,
Veb

Well, I can…

But I usually refrain.

And what are YOU looking at, buttmunch??

And sir, I greatly thank you for doing so.

Given the recent anniversaries of Columbine and Oklahoma City, this subject was in extremely bad taste. And due to my personal feelings on the subject of gun rights, I was prepared to respond in a manner that may have itself been objectionable to some.