4 ms·

Speech like credible threats to life, plotting violent assaults, and so on, should invite investigation. But this sort of thing? No. Where's the harm? Or even t

Speech like credible threats to life, plotting violent assaults, and so on, should invite investigation. But this sort of thing? No. Where's the harm? Or even the potential harm? The other thing is, do we really want a sacred caste of people who can't be criticized? This gets uncomfortably close to the incredibly oppressive lèse-majesté laws that some jurisdictions have.

theprincess 4y ago
> Where's the harm? The harm is in stochastic terrorism. You can make up lies that are intended to spur people who feel they have nothing to lose into action. https://csl.mpg.de/en/projects/philosophical-and-public-security-law-implications-of-stochastic-terrorism#:~:text=As%20described%20by%20leading%20scholars,Hamm%20and%20Spaaij%2C%202017 https://csl.mpg.de/en/projects/philosophical-and-public-secu...). It's similar to the concept of blood libel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel For example, imagine that online discourse on some fringe website that has a few hundred thousand members devolves into a theory that some house in your neighborhood is harboring a secret dungeon full of children underneath it. There is no direct threat to you per se, but a few hundred thousand people think that a house - maybe your house - has a basement full of unspeakable horrors. As the rumor spreads and grows the chances of your house being broken into by one of the believers goes up exponentially. Suddenly nobody in your neighborhood is safe anymore as random weirdos keep scoping out your houses and following you to and from the grocery to see if you're the one with the dungeon beneath your house. Eventually one of these weirdos pulls a gun on your neighbor and demands to see his basement and while there was no dungeon the firearm accidentally went off and killed your neighbor. Your neighbor's death would trace directly back to the spread of this rumor.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  stochastic terrorism Is there a more intellectually dishonest idea? That someone somewhere could misconstrue your words as a call to violence by virtue of the large number of people in the world? And what better way to enforce censorship than to selectively enforce this idea on the topics most important to the party in power?
  - chowells 4y ago
    So... you think it's a total coincidence that after lots of people start talking about specific acts of violence, people start doing them? There's no connection at all?
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    > dishonest idea stochastic terrorism appears to be the academic way of saying “inciting mob violence” seems pretty straightfoward and honest, to me
    - fwn 4y ago
      > stochastic terrorism appears to be the academic way of saying “inciting mob violence” Do you have an example where you think those two concepts could be used interchangeably in academia? I weren't able to find one and I don't think those terms describe similar ideas. Mob dynamics might be about scale in some form, but they are usually not about what we would commonly refer to as terrorism.
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        The OP article refers to the following research: “As described by leading scholars, stochastic terrorism involves ‘the use of mass media to provoke random acts of ideologically motivated violence that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable’ (Hamm and Spaaij, 2017)” maybe inciting “distributed mob violence” would be a better way to translate it for laymen.
    - _bfhp 4y ago
      Is the BDS movement an example of stochastic terrorism? Someone told me they exist to inspire hate crimes against Jewish and Israeli citizens. Are hasbara organizations stochastic terrorist in nature? Someone told me they exist to distract from settler-colonial violence against Palestinians. Who should get to decide which warrants investigation?
      - 4y ago
- dotnet00 4y ago
  That's a ridiculous standard that makes pretty much anything and everything harmful, especially criticism.
- ghiluops 4y ago
  How do you determine in advance which speech will be the precursor to an act of 'stochastic terrorism', without also penalizing speech that will not? Is it possible to accurately define this in law and policy, such that actions against it can be fairly enforced?
  - theprincess 4y ago
    We have a term for the type of speech that spurs stochastic terrorism already. It's blood libel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel If you spread lies about a group that demonizes them you put members of that group at risk. For instance, if I started a viral rumor that white male computer programmers all keep sex slaves under their houses and enough people believed it a lot of the people on this website would suddenly be living much more difficult and dangerous lives as lots of strangers would assume that they were evil monsters who needed to be put down for the sake of children without even getting to know them. The murder rate against white male computer programmers might even rise noticeably as they became a target for random violence by people who wanted to do a "good deed" on their way out of this life.
    - ghiluops 4y ago
      So are you saying that if someone tweets something ridiculous like "Did you know that Jews drink the blood of murdered Christian infants? #zionists", they should be arrested and charged for this? That seems to me a highly disproportionate infringement of this person's freedom of expression, as well as being completely pointless. If you're going to have the police arrest people for posting conspiracist idiocy on the internet, they'd have no time left to investigate real crimes that meaningfully affect people.
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        > they should be arrested and charged for this? If it reaches a point of causing public disorder or harming the general welfare of a democratic society, then why not arrest?
RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
> The other thing is, do we really want a sacred caste of people who can't be criticized? This gets uncomfortably close to the incredibly oppressive lèse-majesté laws that some jurisdictions have. That's effectively what a supreme court justice said should be the case last week. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/29/supreme-court-roberts-kagan-legitimacy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/29/supreme-c...
- hexis 4y ago
  "“All of our opinions are open to criticism,” Roberts said in remarks to judges and lawyers. “In fact, our members do a great job of criticizing some opinions from time to time. But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.”" Were you thinking of a different quote from your source? This quote, which seemed closest to your intent, does not at all say what you were suggesting.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I don't think that's what it being said there. Conservatives on the Supreme Court are being whiny babies about the criticism that their obviously biased rulings are getting (and if we ever get an unbiased court, these rulings will all be thrown out ASAP), but none are actually suggesting that that criticism should be illegal as far as I've seen.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
> The other thing is, do we really want a sacred caste of people who can't be criticized? Since 1948, all people are due the basic human right of dignity. Sacred caste or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Hum...
- ghiluops 4y ago
  The declaration also enshrines the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    As well as the following: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
    - ghiluops 4y ago
      That article does not preclude expressing criticism of others, or opinions about their actions.
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        It does preclude incitement of discrimination: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.“ And otherwise: “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

theprincess 4y ago

> Where's the harm? The harm is in stochastic terrorism. You can make up lies that are intended to spur people who feel they have nothing to lose into action. https://csl.mpg.de/en/projects/philosophical-and-public-security-law-implications-of-stochastic-terrorism#:~:text=As%20described%20by%20leading%20scholars,Hamm%20and%20Spaaij%2C%202017 https://csl.mpg.de/en/projects/philosophical-and-public-secu...). It's similar to the concept of blood libel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel For example, imagine that online discourse on some fringe website that has a few hundred thousand members devolves into a theory that some house in your neighborhood is harboring a secret dungeon full of children underneath it. There is no direct threat to you per se, but a few hundred thousand people think that a house - maybe your house - has a basement full of unspeakable horrors. As the rumor spreads and grows the chances of your house being broken into by one of the believers goes up exponentially. Suddenly nobody in your neighborhood is safe anymore as random weirdos keep scoping out your houses and following you to and from the grocery to see if you're the one with the dungeon beneath your house. Eventually one of these weirdos pulls a gun on your neighbor and demands to see his basement and while there was no dungeon the firearm accidentally went off and killed your neighbor. Your neighbor's death would trace directly back to the spread of this rumor.

jimbob45 4y ago
stochastic terrorism Is there a more intellectually dishonest idea? That someone somewhere could misconstrue your words as a call to violence by virtue of the large number of people in the world? And what better way to enforce censorship than to selectively enforce this idea on the topics most important to the party in power?
- chowells 4y ago
  So... you think it's a total coincidence that after lots of people start talking about specific acts of violence, people start doing them? There's no connection at all?
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  > dishonest idea stochastic terrorism appears to be the academic way of saying “inciting mob violence” seems pretty straightfoward and honest, to me
  - fwn 4y ago
    > stochastic terrorism appears to be the academic way of saying “inciting mob violence” Do you have an example where you think those two concepts could be used interchangeably in academia? I weren't able to find one and I don't think those terms describe similar ideas. Mob dynamics might be about scale in some form, but they are usually not about what we would commonly refer to as terrorism.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
      The OP article refers to the following research: “As described by leading scholars, stochastic terrorism involves ‘the use of mass media to provoke random acts of ideologically motivated violence that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable’ (Hamm and Spaaij, 2017)” maybe inciting “distributed mob violence” would be a better way to translate it for laymen.
  - _bfhp 4y ago
    Is the BDS movement an example of stochastic terrorism? Someone told me they exist to inspire hate crimes against Jewish and Israeli citizens. Are hasbara organizations stochastic terrorist in nature? Someone told me they exist to distract from settler-colonial violence against Palestinians. Who should get to decide which warrants investigation?
    - 4y ago
dotnet00 4y ago
That's a ridiculous standard that makes pretty much anything and everything harmful, especially criticism.
ghiluops 4y ago
How do you determine in advance which speech will be the precursor to an act of 'stochastic terrorism', without also penalizing speech that will not? Is it possible to accurately define this in law and policy, such that actions against it can be fairly enforced?
- theprincess 4y ago
  We have a term for the type of speech that spurs stochastic terrorism already. It's blood libel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel If you spread lies about a group that demonizes them you put members of that group at risk. For instance, if I started a viral rumor that white male computer programmers all keep sex slaves under their houses and enough people believed it a lot of the people on this website would suddenly be living much more difficult and dangerous lives as lots of strangers would assume that they were evil monsters who needed to be put down for the sake of children without even getting to know them. The murder rate against white male computer programmers might even rise noticeably as they became a target for random violence by people who wanted to do a "good deed" on their way out of this life.
  - ghiluops 4y ago
    So are you saying that if someone tweets something ridiculous like "Did you know that Jews drink the blood of murdered Christian infants? #zionists", they should be arrested and charged for this? That seems to me a highly disproportionate infringement of this person's freedom of expression, as well as being completely pointless. If you're going to have the police arrest people for posting conspiracist idiocy on the internet, they'd have no time left to investigate real crimes that meaningfully affect people.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
      > they should be arrested and charged for this? If it reaches a point of causing public disorder or harming the general welfare of a democratic society, then why not arrest?

RosanaAnaDana 4y ago

> The other thing is, do we really want a sacred caste of people who can't be criticized? This gets uncomfortably close to the incredibly oppressive lèse-majesté laws that some jurisdictions have. That's effectively what a supreme court justice said should be the case last week. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/29/supreme-court-roberts-kagan-legitimacy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/29/supreme-c...

hexis 4y ago
"“All of our opinions are open to criticism,” Roberts said in remarks to judges and lawyers. “In fact, our members do a great job of criticizing some opinions from time to time. But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.”" Were you thinking of a different quote from your source? This quote, which seemed closest to your intent, does not at all say what you were suggesting.
bee_rider 4y ago
I don't think that's what it being said there. Conservatives on the Supreme Court are being whiny babies about the criticism that their obviously biased rulings are getting (and if we ever get an unbiased court, these rulings will all be thrown out ASAP), but none are actually suggesting that that criticism should be illegal as far as I've seen.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago

> The other thing is, do we really want a sacred caste of people who can't be criticized? Since 1948, all people are due the basic human right of dignity. Sacred caste or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Hum...

ghiluops 4y ago
The declaration also enshrines the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  As well as the following: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
  - ghiluops 4y ago
    That article does not preclude expressing criticism of others, or opinions about their actions.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
      It does preclude incitement of discrimination: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.“ And otherwise: “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”