If someone actually took this idea seriously, they would have to start with data about terrorism and then ask what speech might have inspired them, and they wou

If someone actually took this idea seriously, they would have to start with data about terrorism and then ask what speech might have inspired them, and they would end up banning pretty much all political expression. The Wikipedia article on Terrorism in the United States lists Attacks by Type[1], two of the types are left-wing and anti-government extremism and right-wing and anti-government extremism. That about covers all political speech. But for people who refer to this idea, the starting point is always that they want to censor specific speech, and they look for acts of terror to justify that. There's no advocate for censorship that couldn't make up their own "stochastic something", and I'm sure many have, I'm sure people have argued that porn is stochastic rape or something. Anyone who has ever advocated for censorship has argued that the speech he wants to censor leads to violence and social breakdown. Do people who consider "stochastic terrorism" a serious concept see themselves in this tradition, just expressing themselves more formally or do they think they've invented something new here? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Attacks_by_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States...