Could a statute be drafted that would establish "stochastic terrorism" as a crime while

[Atticus]

not infringing on freedom of speech?

Can't intent to cause violence be proven with as much certainty as it is for other offenses?

[WarGamer]

1. Well...

So that a future GOP DoJ can arrest Left leaning folks for bullshit.

Doesn't sound good.

Just FYI, the goal here isn't to "out-authoritarian" the GOP...

Give the Fed Gov't that kind of power with a Trump behind them and the George Floyd protests would have resulted in thousands of heavy prison sentences for vandalism and burning down that police precinct.

"unintended consequences"


See Patriot Act.

[Atticus]

3. I asked a question. You respond with an attack. nt

[WarGamer]

4. That's not an attack.

It's an impassioned plea not to go towards the authoritarian darkness in order to "out-authoritarian" the other side.

If you took it as an attack, I'm sorry you saw it that way.

[Atticus]

10. Uh-huh---accusing me of trying to "out-authoritarian" the authoritarians is not an attack? I have

yet to read anything you fear about mis-use of a "new" law that is unique. ANY EXISTING laws "could" be mis-used by "the other side" and sometimes have been.

I could go on, but I see no real prospect of productive discussion or knowledgable comments and that was the motive for the OP.

[wnylib]

13. Word choice and tone sounded to me like an attack.

[WarGamer]

22. That's the difficult thing about online conversation...

In person, they would have never thought I was "attacking"...

[RockRaven]

2. When considering expanding the power of law enforcement and diminishing freedoms of citizens

ask "how would a POTUS as evil as TFG, but highly competent, having staffed the DOJ entirely with corrupt disingenuous turds like Bill Barr, misuse this power?"

[Silent3]

18. Once you assume that level of corruption...

…the law becomes a moot point. Everything becomes a raw exercise of power, and the specifics of the existing law may or may not serve as better window dressing for abuse of power, but are otherwise irrelevant.

[Atticus]

19. Thank you. nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. I can give you a list of who would be charged under it before anyone *you* would want to be

charged under it is done so.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. That is high quality stuff

I never got beyond "civil nuisance" but if you can sell it to Congress, have at it!

[WarGamer]

7. And also...

You asked:

Can't intent to cause violence be proven with as much certainty as it is for other offenses?

Do you want a future MAGAT DoJ charging protest organizers with incitement for chanting "No Justice, No Peace" if there is violence or vandalism in protests??

Always remember... any new law cn be twisted by future GOP'ers to go after US!!

[ananda]

8. Good question.

I hope so.

[Irish_Dem]

9. Any law would still exempt the rich and powerful.

[Hortensis]

11. Yes, a federal law, and probably 50 state laws, is already in place.

Individual and group behaviors are the same. Although murder and other violent terrorism would by definition be forms of "speech," at least as defined by the more recent DOMESTIC terrorism definition, they are not legally protected speech.



Terrorism Definitions (from FBI website)

International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

The terms "stochastic" is evolving, though. It didn't originally require legally complicating media involvement, but rather arose out of deliberately diffuse DVE influences, any organization strictly background. Hard to identify, not hard to define.

I'd like to call a newer, media-involved definition (“the use of mass media to provoke random acts of ideologically motivated violence that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable” sounds good) "Fox" terrorism -- in honor of the most prominent actor among the RW media who trolled to provoke assassination of Barak Obama. Quite a national show, and of course they're still at it now and then. So right that we need a legal leash on this.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. How would you go about proving someone's state of mind?

Sounds like a slippery slope to me…why wouldn’t existing laws on incitement suffice?

[Atticus]

14. Prosecutors are required to prove a defendant's state of mind every day in prosecutions where

intent is an element of the charged offense.

I may be wrong, but I believe the current laws making "incitement" a crime contemplate a specific person or group being encouraged to commit an offense against a specific person or group.

In stochastic terrorism, the speaker addresses the public at large in an effort to encourage one or some of them to harm a specific person or a large class of people, such as a race or a religion or a political party.

[Zeitghost]

21. Proving intent

With regards to actions is different than proving the "true" intent of their speech. It also doesn't come with the same potential to infringe on the free speech rights of everyone. That is why the Brandenberg Test exists; criminalizing vague speech because "We all know what they really meant" is a very slippery slope.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. No thanks n/t

[Initech]

17. I ain't touching this one with a 10,000 foot pole.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. The holding in Brandenburg is fine.