3 ms·

This concept is sophistry when deployed against Democrats just as much as it was when deployed against Republicans. “Stochastic terrorism” is free speech. I g

This concept is sophistry when deployed against Democrats just as much as it was when deployed against Republicans. “Stochastic terrorism” is free speech. I get it, you don’t like your enemies and you want to find a way to punish them. Maybe even to prevent them from saying things that seem to be increasing their base of support. So you find a few dangerous whackos who also happened to articulate the same points that you’re trying to suppress. Boom, instant justification to suppress that speech! Even if the speech isn’t per se illegal, maybe the fact that both your target and the whackos said the same thing makes it ok to suppress that speech anyway! No, that doesn’t make it ok. Free speech is free speech. Stop trying to unconstitutionally suppress the rights of your opponents.

PorterBHall 9mo ago
In the United States, stochastic terrorism is neither a statutory offense nor a term of art in criminal codes; it is an analytic label used in scholarship and practitioner writing to describe probabilistic risks of violence linked to rhetoric. Recent legal and critical surveys stress that usage is heterogeneous and contested, and that the concept's value lies in describing a structure of communication and harm rather than in supplying a justiciable element test.[7] By contrast, U.S. incitement law is anchored in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which protects advocacy short of speech that is intended to produce imminent lawless action and likely to do so. Stochastic accounts often concern non-directive, cumulative rhetoric whose effects materialize unpredictably, making the Brandenburg imminence and likelihood prongs difficult to satisfy absent clear exhortation.[2]
- timmmmmmay 9mo ago
  the more you don't want somebody to be allowed to say something, the more stochastic it is
- rcbdev 9mo ago
  What is up with this comment, is it bot-spam? What are the citations [7] and [2] supposed to be?
  - Etherlord87 9mo ago
    It's a quote from the submission (Wikipedia article).
- iamnothere 9mo ago
  The goal of those pushing the “stochastic terrorism” scam has always been either outright criminalization of the speech or (at a minimum) public-private coordinated suppression of the speech. Don’t fall for it.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- xtiansimon 9mo ago
  > “Stochastic accounts often concern non-directive, cumulative rhetoric whose effects materialize unpredictably…” And it would seem ever more rapidly. I know I feel enervated by the videos I see from MN. More and more by at the speed of my scrolling. And, video instances depict the behaviors of agents who, in the moment of encounter, are able to rapidly escalate situations. I would argue the latter is agents learning tricks and shortcuts from other agents on how to dominate. The more unrestricted and unaccountable they are, the more individuals are emboldened to learn and strive for the approbation of their superiors. They have a quota.
  - xtiansimon 9mo ago
    Following my last comment, “You raise your voice; I erase your voice”. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUBV45wkWe_/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUBV45wkWe_/

PorterBHall 9mo ago

In the United States, stochastic terrorism is neither a statutory offense nor a term of art in criminal codes; it is an analytic label used in scholarship and practitioner writing to describe probabilistic risks of violence linked to rhetoric. Recent legal and critical surveys stress that usage is heterogeneous and contested, and that the concept's value lies in describing a structure of communication and harm rather than in supplying a justiciable element test.[7] By contrast, U.S. incitement law is anchored in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which protects advocacy short of speech that is intended to produce imminent lawless action and likely to do so. Stochastic accounts often concern non-directive, cumulative rhetoric whose effects materialize unpredictably, making the Brandenburg imminence and likelihood prongs difficult to satisfy absent clear exhortation.[2]

timmmmmmay 9mo ago
the more you don't want somebody to be allowed to say something, the more stochastic it is
rcbdev 9mo ago
What is up with this comment, is it bot-spam? What are the citations [7] and [2] supposed to be?
- Etherlord87 9mo ago
  It's a quote from the submission (Wikipedia article).
iamnothere 9mo ago
The goal of those pushing the “stochastic terrorism” scam has always been either outright criminalization of the speech or (at a minimum) public-private coordinated suppression of the speech. Don’t fall for it.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
xtiansimon 9mo ago
> “Stochastic accounts often concern non-directive, cumulative rhetoric whose effects materialize unpredictably…” And it would seem ever more rapidly. I know I feel enervated by the videos I see from MN. More and more by at the speed of my scrolling. And, video instances depict the behaviors of agents who, in the moment of encounter, are able to rapidly escalate situations. I would argue the latter is agents learning tricks and shortcuts from other agents on how to dominate. The more unrestricted and unaccountable they are, the more individuals are emboldened to learn and strive for the approbation of their superiors. They have a quota.
- xtiansimon 9mo ago
  Following my last comment, “You raise your voice; I erase your voice”. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUBV45wkWe_/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUBV45wkWe_/