@kroyio @georgetakei Stochastic terrorism and incitement are not synonyms.
https://qoto.org/@LouisIngenthron/111319248645831854
That's not a flaw. That's how it's intentionally designed.
Think about it. If you go on social media and bitch about a movie being bad and some unhinged lunatic sees that and decides to kill the director and they tell the cops that you inspired their crime, should you go to jail for that? No, the crazy person should. We should be free to rant and insult and criticize to our hearts' pleasure and not be responsible for how some nutso jackass decides to interpret that.
That's why the standard requires a direct call for imminent lawlessness.
@LouisIngenthron @kroyio if “imminent lawless action” is a good standard it should be the standard for threats as well.
@theothersimo @kroyio The standards are similar, I believe. But incitement needs to be a bit tighter because it's inherently unjust to punish someone for the actions of another unless you are very sure they are truly responsible.
@LouisIngenthron @kroyio your example is one where death is not the intended outcome, so it’s not remotely relevant to this conversation. We were talking about stochastic terrorism, in case you forgot.
@theothersimo @kroyio You're right. And, in fact, I misquoted the definition.
It's not whether a reasonable person would interpret the speech as being incitement, but rather whether it is "likely" to cause imminent lawless action.
So, that's actually a better standard. Sorry for my mistake.
@LouisIngenthron @kroyio you haven’t addressed any of anybody’s points though.
@LouisIngenthron @kroyio @georgetakei one problem is that “incitement” is defined around the perceptions of a rational person, but political violence is carried out by the far end of the irrationality bell curve. So if you’re skilled at emotionally manipulating nutters, you can leave whole trails of bodies behind you and there’s nothing the state can do to stop you.