3 ms·
> 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 t
by 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.