🏳️🌈🖖🏽
Is Trump a stochastic terrorist? By the very definition of the term, that answer is a resounding YES. But what can be done about it, especially now that he is facing four criminal cases? https://thinkbigpicture.substack.com/p/donald-trump-stochastic-terrorist-threats
@georgetakei Nothing, legally, since "stochastic terrorism" isn't a crime.
The only real consequence for that is not voting for him.
@isomeme @georgetakei There's a difference between their conduct. Manson's conduct passes the Brandenburg v Ohio test for incitement. Trump's does not (arguably; the J6 commission made a good case otherwise, but it's a high bar to clear).
The key is that Manson straight up said "go kill those people now" whereas Trump said stuff like "if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." The difference is the imminence, and whether or not they can prove he intended to cause lawless action in a court of law.
And, if you think about it, this standard is a good thing, because if we didn't have it, Trump's DOJ would have charged several prominent democrats during the 2020 BLM march for the same reason. This is exactly why we don't allow our government to punish subjective speech.
@LouisIngenthron @isomeme @georgetakei very thoughtful observations!
But the problem is multifold- (white) politicians just said it’s not a big deal - for decades. Trump is a manifestation of the bigotry & racism which IS part of this nation’s fabric.
Can the bigots say just about anything?
Yes ..But shouldn’t it be pointed out for all to know? Does this impede free speech? Not if media did its job & if politicians weren’t complicit or afraid.
@LouisIngenthron
According to the article, a condition of his release bond is a limit on what he can say, which he himself agreed to. So, at this point, there actually is a legal restriction on what he can say.
@TheDefiant604 @georgetakei Yes, individuals can choose to sign their rights away. But even then, violating that agreement is not a crime and would, at worst (afaik), get him contempt of court or a revocation of bond leading to him being held in jail until trial.
More importantly, though, the restrictions imposed by the court are, by necessity, narrowly tailored to achieve a specific goal. They don't stop him from holding rallies or lying.
@LouisIngenthron @georgetakei
They put Charles Manson in prison for life even though he was nowhere near the murders committed by his followers, just because he encouraged them. I've never liked the ethical theory behind that outcome, but if it's a valid legal principle, it seems like it should also apply to Trump.