Gaming companies have recently been performing a new 'cooperation' with the federal government in the United States: multiple 'extremist' gamers, or gamers who use certain kinds of 'terrorist' language, have been located by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after being charged with 'extremist threats' as stated above, and have been arrested by local police for their actions.

The imagined benefit from this is that the gaming industry will be safer, and extremism in the the gamer's community will be eradicated.(1)​(2)

This is not only a disgusting gate to communism, which prevents the right to privacy on one's property (The Communist Manifesto, pg. 32) and therefore violates a 'no-recording' law (3​, 4), but it is also a profound, if not direct, violation of the Bill of Rights' Fourth Amendment (5). And the excuse that these arrests are lawful simply because of suspicion or probable cause is a result of unlawful activity therein, therefore the law-abiding claims are invalidated effectively. 

It is without saying that this is also a violation of the First Amendment, which clearly forbids the abridgement of speech (6). As for the laws in America concerning threats, those threats are only within a public area, like a street (7). Yes, the Internet is public, but the gaming platforms and web browsers use private, personal information that is not to be shared publicly according to the Terms of Service of multiple gaming platforms, including their speech (8​, 9​, 10​, 11).

Qualified immunity, another possible reason why law enforcement exercises such invasive behavior, is only subject to protect officers from individual lawsuits (12​, 13), and a seizure of homes for people that is not 'just', 'ordinary', 'usual' or 'appropriate' - particularly, arresting people for idle words considered 'threats' they likely do not intend to follow through with, or are simply effects of a mental disability - is a violation of the definition for 'reasonable', in the context of 'reasonable officers believing that a search did not violate the Fourth Amendment' (14).

Besides, it is common knowledge that far greater, more conscious crimes that ordinary people have committed only once, even in speech, have not received criminal charges, except for the instance of undeniable and obvious evidence.

We cannot allow these disgusting invasions of privacy to continue. There is no clause in the government that forbids our right to petition for a redress of grievances, and what's more, this is a government 'by the people, for the people' and only by the 'consent of the Governed' (15​, 16), not a people by or for the government, or the consent of the government.

If this petition receives 500,000 or more signatures by August 31, we the people of the United States will be capable of passing this new redress of obvious grievances to the newly elected President, whoever they may be, as a means to prioritize once again the non-negotiable safety, security and opportunity of the American people, who are currently being held in a depressive state of indifference without forgiveness or retribution.

It is not up to the government; we are the government. We are the people deciding whether or not threats are liable to be addressed, not the police or the FBI. The federal and state government cannot exist without the people. The official business cannot exist without the people. And neither can a free government exist if people are to be stringently indicted for their every idle use of the liberty of speech, except in the case of fulfillment through illegal action with clear and undeniable evidence. 

The government will never control everything the people say, or everything the people do, or everything the people bear within themselves to both speak and act accordingly. They may as well not start now.