> Then how can we explain the large number of people exposed to radical media but only a small handful performing radical violence? Surely there's some various

> Then how can we explain the large number of people exposed to radical media but only a small handful performing radical violence? Surely there's some various in the predisposition of individuals to become radicalized, but I don't suspect that means that people who do become radicalized would inevitably have become radicalized regardless of their exposure to certain ideas. The fact that terrorist groups put a lot of effort into radicalizing people indicates that they are under the impression that their efforts are meaningful. Even if the predisposition for an individual to become radicalized is already determined and unchangeable, there is an incentive for various radical groups to radicalize those people under their banner rather than some other banner. > Everyone is against radical violence and media that contributes to that end. But what about media that makes someone a Trump voter? Rhetorically some argue that they are just as dangerous as any shooter because they create a social environment that precipitates violence, even though the causation isn't direct. I agree that there's a continuum here, and that it's extremely subjective. I think most people agree that explicitly inciting violence is not (and should not be) protected speech/communication. But what about communication about groups dedicated to violence that don't explicitly mention violence? Then what about groups espousing philosophies which are strongly correlated with advocating violence, like blatant racism? Then what about groups that espouse philosophies described to just barely not quite be blatant racism, like "white nationalists" who explicitly advocate for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" of certain people from certain regions, but claim to not be racist and not support violence? Do we throw up our hands and say "well, they said the word 'peaceful,' therefore they're not technically advocating violence, therefore it's protected speech"?