🏳️🌈🖖🏽
There’s a term “stochastic terrorism” when someone triggers others to act so can claim he had nothing to do with it. The law isn’t good at stopping this. But Trump is now a criminal defendant, subject to limitations. Courts must now use their power to stop his online terrorism.
@georgetakei "The law isn't good at stopping this" because it's explicitly protected under the 1st amendment...
@LouisIngenthron @georgetakei Not ALL speech is protected. Inciting a riot or insurrection is illegal; stochastic terrorism might be viewed as inciting a distributed riot.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-riot-violence-or-insurrection.html
Not a lawyer &c.
@peterdrake @georgetakei Incitement and stochastic terrorism are two different things. Incitement, in US law at least, requires a four-pronged test; the speech has to be (1) intended to, and (2) understood by a reasonable person to direct others to commit (3) imminent (4) lawless action.
Stochastic terrorism, on the other hand, is just fueling people's grievances until they act on their own violent impulses.
One is criminal. The other is protected speech.
@LouisIngenthron @georgetakei I thought of stochastic terrorism as somewhat stronger, e.g. someone who knows they have many unhinged followers musing on TV, "Maybe someone will take that guy out. Wouldn't that be great?"
@peterdrake In theory, that example would depend on the tone of voice, but it certainly could qualify as stochastic terrorism. A key element is often using coded or vague language.
But it still wouldn't come close to criminal incitement.