In these sorts of discussions I think it's very important to quote the relevant parts of such a large, dense document when linking to it. US Code, Title 18, §8

In these sorts of discussions I think it's very important to quote the relevant parts of such a large, dense document when linking to it. US Code, Title 18, §842(p)(2) (A) > to teach or demonstrate the making or use of ... or to distribute ... information pertaining to ... the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction > ... with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence (B) > knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence Note that this very narrowly applies only when intent can be demonstrated, at which point you are arguably an active participant in whatever crime is being committed. In my opinion, that is quite different from your earlier claim. > The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence. This isn't regulating mere promotion, it's regulating a form of active participation. The Christchurch Call agreement isn't even remotely similar.