Because threats are serious, be it threats of violence or sexual assault. They weren’t “candidly implying the possibility” of violence, they were imposing threats. And that’s not okay, nor will it be tolerated on the forum, just as it isn’t in the eyes of the law.
Banning threats is not the issue. It’s expanding the definition of a threat. It needs to be kept narrowed down.
I’m sorry to hear about your friend, but that’s not anybody’s burden to bear but his and I hope he gets help.
If his psychological trauma is so serious that even knowing about an opinion he doesn’t like will set off flashbacks, then that’s likely indicative of something beyond the capacity of the broad public to reasonably accommodate.
Thankfully he told us he had a great childhood and was never abused, physically, emotionally or sexually. He’s one of the lucky ones if anything. His problem with even fictional CP and child sex assault dolls is that they make him remember his childhood less rosy. Why the fuck should we taint everyone’s childhood just so a handful of sickos can get the rocks off?
Do what you will in the States. As I said, your country and it’s weird laws criminalize implying violence while legalizing fake CP. But here in Australia, we have standards. We have the classification board to make sure anything particularly immoral is not allowed to be distributed. We most certainly will not tolerate cgi or drawn CP because it harms every Australian’s mind. But we won’t go to extreme lengths to broaden threats to include mere implying of violence. People need to be able to warn others harm may come there way without being risked being prosecuted.