If you threaten high-ranking officials in the United States government on DU....

[trumad]

I believe that the offenders info should be turned over to the Secret Service. I don't understand any reluctance to do so?

[hedgehog]

1. It's like teachers trying to decide if they are dealing with a kid

with a big mouth or a future gunman. How can you tell when someone is shooting off his mouth and someone is announcing future plans?

[trumad]

2. You question them...

[jkshaw]

3. Depends on what we threaten them with ...

... heh heh heh.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trumad]

9. Good question.....

[Journeyman]

4. I'd rather see the threats scrubbed first. . .

and the Mods (and preferably the DU owners) issue a no-compromised warning to the offender (plenty of people on these boards do plenty of stupid things, believing their "anonymity" protects them from the consequences).

Repeat offenders should be banned and, depending on the nature of the threat, the proper authorities notified if circumstances so warrant.

[trumad]

7. I agree but that didn't happen...

not to blame the mods, they can't be everywhere.... But Me thinks it's the job of the SS to question every threat.

[William769]

5. I agree.

A threat is a threat is a threat.

[SmokingJacket]

8. Probably depends on the nature of the threat.

A clear, specific threat? Absolutely.

A vaguer thing that could be interpreted many ways? Maybe not.

I don't remember any threads that made anything close to specific threats -- of course I don't read ALL of DU (though I sure do read a lot of it) -- but I have seen some that say things like, Time to buy some guns! and that sort of thing.

I trust the admins here to make the right decision -- they've done a great job keeping this site sane.

[angstlessk]

10. shame on YOU..you sound like..'well if you haven't done anything wrong'

why the hell do you need civil liberties?

[htuttle]

15. I was just going to say the same thing

[Cobalt-60]

11. Its a dilemma

I've never seen a riper collection of gallows meat than the criminals currently infesting the white house.
But we can't call for the trap to be sprung on them until they're out of office.
So we need to purge them from the government.
Then we can offer them justice!

[formercia]

14. Give them something they haven't given others

fair and due process, otherwise, we're just like them.

[napi21]

12. Don't you think it depends on your definition of a threat?

I've already written to my two Senators and threatened them with NEVER voting for them and spreading the word if they maintained their position on a certain thing. That's a threat, but I hardly think the SS would care.

If you are talking about physical threats, it goes without saying that should never be done, and DU should deal with it the way they see fit.

[liberal N proud]

13. Define threat

We all talk big on here from time to time and what we might consider a heated remark could be construed by the regime as a threat. Their definition can change like the reasons for war, what ever fits to make their case.

[MrCoffee]

16. You must be joking...

The Administrators are doing exactly the right thing. Just handing out personal information based on a phone call would be ridiculous and reckless. If the Secret Service (or any other governmental agency) wants records that are not available to the general public, there are means and methods for them to compel the production of those records.

I for one am grateful to the Administrators for taking legitimate, legal steps to protecting our privacy.

[EarlG]

17. I'm going to lock this

Feel free to post comments in Skinner's original thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2487403

I hope you will keep in mind that while it's easy enough to announce what you would or wouldn't do in this situation, you aren't in our shoes and you don't know all the details of this particular case.