6 ms·

I cite an example from 1170 and you pretend I'm claiming it's new? Maybe you should direct your comments to my interlocutor, who claimed not to know the term in

I cite an example from 1170 and you pretend I'm claiming it's new? Maybe you should direct your comments to my interlocutor, who claimed not to know the term in 2023. Using "this isn't new" as your standard opening - three times in this discussion alone and all of them a bit spurious - isn't very good for curious conversation.

nobodyandproud 3y ago
> but anybody who has been paying attention can see right through it and it's beginning to look as though the legal system might catch up. Can you explain what you mean here, then? I’m talking about the current legal system here like you, so I’m wondering what’s fundamentally so new that censorship is the only answer here?
- notacoward 3y ago
  > Can you explain what you mean here, then? Exactly what it says: the legal system has not caught up. Even in a post-Brandenburg world, the standard is still that the threat must be both explicit and imminent. They're still struggling with the "stochastic" part of stochastic terrorism, even though the phenomenon itself has existed for centuries. > I’m talking about the current legal system here like you, so I’m wondering what’s fundamentally so new that censorship is the only answer here? Never said, never implied, not even relevant in this particular sub-thread.
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    > Exactly what it says: the legal system has not caught up. Even in a post-Brandenburg world, the standard is still that the threat must be both explicit and imminent. They're still struggling with the "stochastic" part of stochastic terrorism, even though the phenomenon itself has existed for centuries. That’s not an answer. I already showed you where we have existing laws and precedent; so I ask again what’s different? Or are you saying that the bar for inciting violence was considered too stringent? Because the only legal lack I’m aware of is what to do when a President is the one that incites a rebellion. > Never said, never implied, not even relevant in this particular sub-thread. Fair. The sub-thread spawned from moderated speech but I agree moderation isn’t the same as censorship.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nobodyandproud 3y ago

> but anybody who has been paying attention can see right through it and it's beginning to look as though the legal system might catch up. Can you explain what you mean here, then? I’m talking about the current legal system here like you, so I’m wondering what’s fundamentally so new that censorship is the only answer here?

notacoward 3y ago
> Can you explain what you mean here, then? Exactly what it says: the legal system has not caught up. Even in a post-Brandenburg world, the standard is still that the threat must be both explicit and imminent. They're still struggling with the "stochastic" part of stochastic terrorism, even though the phenomenon itself has existed for centuries. > I’m talking about the current legal system here like you, so I’m wondering what’s fundamentally so new that censorship is the only answer here? Never said, never implied, not even relevant in this particular sub-thread.
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  > Exactly what it says: the legal system has not caught up. Even in a post-Brandenburg world, the standard is still that the threat must be both explicit and imminent. They're still struggling with the "stochastic" part of stochastic terrorism, even though the phenomenon itself has existed for centuries. That’s not an answer. I already showed you where we have existing laws and precedent; so I ask again what’s different? Or are you saying that the bar for inciting violence was considered too stringent? Because the only legal lack I’m aware of is what to do when a President is the one that incites a rebellion. > Never said, never implied, not even relevant in this particular sub-thread. Fair. The sub-thread spawned from moderated speech but I agree moderation isn’t the same as censorship.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]