Romney riot threats on Twitter is a frightening new trend that is surprisingly common. There has been a buzz about the phenomenon lately, but the author had no idea how pervasive this sickening threat is. It is easy to search Twitter, just put "Romney" and "Riot" in the search feature and many tweets pop up. Just in the past few hours, there have been many threats of rioting should Mitt Romney win the presidential election on Twitter.
Twitchy reports that just for pointing out the riot tweets, MSNBC political analyst Joan Walsh accused the site of "ugly racial paranoia". Is it paranoia? Perhaps it is. But there almost seems to be a level of support for such irresponsible statements, just by the very fact that they are not being denounced in the mainstream media.
Why are these threatening tweets only being mentioned by those on the right side of the aisle? Why is the mainstream media silent?
Here are, sadly, only a small number of examples, just from a quick search:
If Romney wins A) the world definitely will end before his term and B) there will be a riot in philadelphia that I will gladly join in on
— Erika Firestone (@erikaelectricc) November 5, 2012
IF ROMNEY WINS WE RIOT
— William Brown (@williambr0wn) November 5, 2012
If Romney win, Imma start a riot, Imma start a riot.
— Britni Tiara (@kissmy_tiki) November 5, 2012
Who wants to help start a riot if Romney wins the election #AskTwitter
— Keith Cortez(@_HoldOnTrap) November 5, 2012
It is a scary trend, and perhaps it means nothing. Is threatening to riot even legal? Ann Coulter was recently criticized for saying, "White Liberals Are Always Threatening Black Riots Whenever They're About To Lose An Election," yet her words ring true, particularly in light of a recent statement by Bill Maher, who said, "just kidding" after he made the following statement,
"If you're thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after you."
As recently noted by Margie Wilson-Mars, "There are plenty of things to worry about depending on who wins the election, hopefully it won't be rioting from these young people supporting President Obama and tweeting song lyrics." Perhaps the unemployment, the foreign policy mess, the polarizing nature of American Politics and the economy should take precedence over riot threats.
More importantly, there should be a unified front from the right and the left to denounce these tweets.
Watch Ann Coulter's comments here:
Photo Source: Stephen Lam, Reuters via FellowshipOfMinds
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 68
Have any of the right-wing "journalists" actually made any effort to determine if, say, any law enforcement agencies have made preparations for anti-Romney riots? I mean, I know there was that idiotic judge in Texas who's getting ready for a civil war if Obama wins, but I haven't heard or read anything about any law enforcement agencies taking these riot tweets as a sign of any credible threat. Have you, Renee?
I did a Twitter search and saw some of the kinds of tweets you're talking about. I also saw some that you didn't bother to mention. Like these:
@Garrett_Toole Liberals saying they're gonna kill/riot if Obama loses. That's fine. I'll shoot you in the kitchen, I don't want blood stains on my carpet.
@BKnieval So I keep hearing people are going to riot if Obama loses. Ok, doesn't mean we don't have cops still and citizens have guns. Please riot.
@Chapman_Jamie You know, people are saying stay inside if Obama voters riot if Romney wins. I disagree. It will finally give me an excuse to punch one.
@BMWKing1 Amen! #2A #tcot "@GinGander" To the people threatening to riot if Obama loses, just remember which side has all the guns."
@AryanLiving i keep hearing that if Obama loses the niggers are going to riot, I'm buying ammo & voting twice! its gonna be a Jive-Turkey-Shoot
Good job doing your part to help spread the meme, Renee. You do such a great job showing everybody how concerned you are about polarization in US politics.
More importantly, there should be a unified front from the right and the left to denounce these tweets.
Can you name any law enforcement agency that considers these tweets a credible threat and has made preparations to deal with riots if President Obama loses the election, Renee?
"Just because I do not endorse riot tweets does not mean I endorse violent tweets in response to them."
I didn't say anything about endorsement. I pointed out that you didn't even mention them. And as far as I know, you haven't mentioned them in any of your other various articles and comments about the "riot tweets". Clearly, your failure to do so indicates a level of support.
If you really consider these "riot tweets" frightening, have you contacted Twitter about them to express your concern, fear, anxiety, etc.? Have you contacted any law enforcement or other government agency? Your local police department? State police? FBI? Or, if you're not into all that "socialism" stuff, how about a private security company? Anybody?
Well first of all, says who? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? Secondly, were any of those folks Renee? Because that's who I asked about contacting the police. And thirdly, if you have evidence that "a lot of folks" contacted the LAPD about it, do you have any evidence of the LAPD's response? Any evidence at all that they consider these "riot tweets" to be a serious, credible threat that has caused them to prepare for election riots?
"Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia are among the cities that plan to have extra police deployed in the advent of rioting on election night."
Izzat right? And you've got evidence to back up your claim, and that shows that statements reported at thehill.com were incorrect?It looks to me like your claim is a bunch of BS.
"The federal government has clearly been preparing for such a fallout..."
Clear to those who cling to debunked (here, here, here, here, and here) conspiracy theories maybe.
"Non-military U.S. government agencies have enough deadly hollow point bullets to kill every man, woman, and child in the country five times over."
I can understand why that might be of concern to somebody who said, in a discussion about people starting a civil war if Obama is re-elected, "Yep they do plan on killing those of us that oppose what they have planned for our nation." I can see why people planning armed rebellion against the government might prefer that the government didn't shoot back.
When you refer to Occupy violence do you mean the acts of violence committed by the police against protesters, Renee? Or are you trying to diminish that violence?
Of course there were acts of violence and property damage (which aren't the same thing) at Occupy camps, marches, demonstrations, etc. But that doesn't mean the Occupy Movement was itself a violent movement. There were a lot of people involved doing a lot of good. In fact, they still are.
And why mention "potential" tea party violence while ignoring actual violence? Are you diminishing that violence? Trying to help cover it up/keep it quiet? Is your silence and failure to denounce acts of violence and other criminal acts by Tea Party supporters evidence of your support for those acts?
Here in Ohio we've learned that any hacker can change our ballots during the counting process. There's a court date today to try to get the computer program being used tossed out because of that.
No, it certainly didn't. Is that how you're trying to explain why your guy lost the election? How sad.
"And the responses TO the threats by conservatives? Good for them."
Really, Marilyn? Good for the guy who says that he wants people to riot so that he'll have an excuse to shoot them?
Good for the guy who hopes people will riot so that he'll have an excuse to punch somebody?
"Folks with guns should be prepared to use to protect their homes and families. And it's fair to warn folks that you'll do just that."
What those people were tweeting had nothing to do with warning people that they'd protect their homes and families. They were saying they wanted a riot so that they'd finally have an excuse to hurt and kill people. What they're doing is just as stupid and offensive as the morons tweeting about rioting.
Tell that to the four women who were kidnapped and raped by "well-known GOP fundraiser and Tea Party activist Greg Peterson. I guess your silence and failure to denounce his actions are evidence of your support, right?
Is it not "legitimate rape" if it's a Tea Party guy sexually assaulting women?
Did it ever occur to you that they're not anticipating problems because they know that the election has been rigged?
Yes Marilyn we all got a memo on this.
Perfect, Lori.
Humor and intelligence is better than paranoia and rabble-rousing lies any day.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
That being said, people should be able to defend themselves.
Exactly, August Lady. The article was really the suggestion that a phenomena had some special or sinister meaning.
Wil, with his traditional kindness toward the less-intelligent, pointed out the sources of information that refuted the most irrational and paranoid comments.
Wil Be. If anyone came up a threatened you or your family, if they sent you a personal email threatening your life or a member of your family, you would laugh it off?.
Nikita, I've been online for 18 years, and while I know other people who've dealt with it a lot more than I have, I've had my share of death threats. Some of those threats I have taken seriously, while others I haven't. The same is true for face-to-face threats.
Some threats I have taken no more seriously than I've taken notifications that I've won foreign lotteries that I've never heard of (never mind actually entered) or offers to make easy million just by helping a Nigerian prince.
Others I've taken very seriously, and have learned from experience that my personal feelings about the seriousness of the threat may not be shared by others (for example, Gather member support or other website administrators, local police, etc.) It's been my experience that they make their own evaluations about the seriousness and credibility of particular threats, and take action based on their assessment, rather than on the views and opinions of the target of the threats.
Now, I don't know if being a former governor counts as an "elected" official, or being nominated by the party for their choice for republican president. Does anyone else know?
Also, the Secret Service refuse to share how many actual threats are made against the President - any President - because they don't want to inflame others. Obviously, twitter is open to those who use it, and one can see for one's self what is going on there. But as far as other communications of threats, unless we want to scan every single facebook user, we have no idea how many threats there have been against President Obama and/or his family (also a felony).
Many black twitter users have condemned those threatening violence against Romney, by the way.
There is no mention of threats against someone running for office
A Secret Service spokesman, Brian Leary, said that the they "do not prioritize one protectee over another—as in, threats to the president of the United States would not necessarily be taken more seriously than threats to a major presidential candidate for president of the United States."
Many black twitter users have condemned those threatening violence against Romney, by the way. Hopefully everybody, no matter the color, would condemn the tweets. Why point out Black people?
It's supposed to be a problem here in Cincinnati if Obama wins. And since we have pretty recent experience with rioting, perhaps it will be.
I see a list of tweets where people are saying they're going to riot if Romney wins. It's kind of a letdown when I was expecting actual threats directed at someone or some thing. This stuff is very borderline. It's on the edge of protected speech even if it is offensive to many. I have no idea what Twitter's TOS is like. I have no idea how much effort Twitter makes to enforce it. I'm not sure any law enforcement agency would be strongly interested in these tweets by themselves.
From what I've seen, the "riot tweets" didn't involve threats to specific people. There have been other tweets that did (various threats to kill President Obama and Romney), but as far as I can tell, those aren't the tweets Renee's talking about in this article.
"I have no idea what Twitter's TOS is like."
It's pretty laid-back. No direct, specific threats to others, and no illegal activities. I'm not a cop or a lawyer, but I think these sorts of "riot tweets" are most likely legal. Something like "meet at 6th and Main at 8 o'clock Saturday to start the riot/revolution if Romney/Obama wins" might get some attention, but the stuff Renee has written about probably doesn't cut it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And fortunately for you, Romney Supporters are not the type to riot. Who knows what would have happened had he been elected. ;-)
But I am still laughing at you people. All whining, no accountability, all the time. And since you lost the election, you have to start finding more material. The stuff you're using sucks.
Of course not.
BM, one day you'll have an independent, intelligent thought. Unfortunately, it won't happen in my lifetime.
I'm sure you're still feeling like you've been bitch slapped by reality, so I'll give you a pass this time.