Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

3. Protecting free speech is the first priority.

Reply to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 03:51 PM

Jun 2014

Who is to decide which commentators are stochastic terrorists?

That involves a political judgment.

Is it OK for the government to rile people up to fight a war?

How far do you go with prohibiting speech?

What the OP describes is not the equivalent of someone yelling fire in a theater.

What the OP refers to as stochastic speech can be silenced only when the voices of people who advocate for peace are stronger than those who advocate for arms and extremist views. You really can't silence voices through police action or taking them off the radio.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Stochastic terrorism [View all] Jackpine Radical Jun 2014 OP

Kick. Extremely important. Hekate Jun 2014 #1

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Jun 2014 #2

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Jun 2014 #4

This post is a kind of stochastic terrorism. JackRiddler Jun 2014 #16

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Jun 2014 #20

You and the Kellogg Eugenics Board JackRiddler Jun 2014 #22

Protecting free speech is the first priority. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #3

I agree with you to some degree. I also think that 1) No, governments should not be allowed to DesertDiamond Jun 2014 #7

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Jun 2014 #14

But the average person can't afford to bankroll a TV news channel CJCRANE Jun 2014 #13

It should not be a legal category, no. JackRiddler Jun 2014 #17

I have difficulty seeing the difference between "stochastic terrorism" and "disturbed people do Brickbat Jun 2014 #5

I'm having the same difficulty, plus 1st Amendment concerns. n/t ColesCountyDem Jun 2014 #6

I know, you and others are worried about a slippery slope of free speech. Allowing free speech to DesertDiamond Jun 2014 #9

Who decides? You? Me? Some government agency? ColesCountyDem Jun 2014 #10

Is this "yelling fire"? I'm also opposed to censorship, but I know stochastic terrorism is real. Scuba Jun 2014 #11

No, it isn't. ColesCountyDem Jun 2014 #15

Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #19

Besides, yelling fire in a crowded theater is not illegal. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #26

Correct. n/t ColesCountyDem Jun 2014 #28

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Jun 2014 #18

There are people who stand to benefit from turning us against each other. Divide and conquer. DesertDiamond Jun 2014 #8

some of whom will hear voices regardless reddread Jun 2014 #32

This is important, LWolf Jun 2014 #12

We own the airwaves maindawg Jun 2014 #21

Very interesting. I posted this thread describing stochastic terrorism. Then lots of people Jackpine Radical Jun 2014 #23

The principles on which the Bill of Rights are based... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2014 #24

One can decry a noxious message. Jackpine Radical Jun 2014 #25

I'd like that. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2014 #29

I agree. Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #30

In this society, right-wing stochastic terrorism is as rampant on the airwaves as are guns on the indepat Jun 2014 #27

K & R Shankapotomus Jun 2014 #31

Criminal negligence Livingtree Oct 2014 #33