Violent rhetoric online is becoming increasingly relevant to the practice of forensic mental health assessment as examinee's virtual lives may transform into real-world acts of violence. With the rise of a diverse subculture of violent online communities, the aim of the present study was to inform how concerns with online sources of collateral data and racial/ethnic biases may influence determinations of violence potential. Using an experimental design, jury-eligible participants (N = 278) and forensic mental health experts (N = 78) were presented with mock Twitter (now referred to as X) posts that varied by data source (i.e., how information was accessed) and the examinee's race/ethnicity. Results showed no differences in participants' ratings of data credibility, how much weight they would place on the posts in a threat assessment, or how likely the examinee was to act violently against his intended target. Implications regarding the interpretation of social media evidence, relevant limitations, and future research are discussed.