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

In reply to the discussion: Stochastic terrorism [View all]

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
23. Very interesting. I posted this thread describing stochastic terrorism. Then lots of people
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:15 PM
Jun 2014

leaped to the assumption that I was proposing some sort of solution, more specifically a solution that involves curtailing the First Amendment, and then went chasing after that like a pack of hounds on the trail of Harvey the Invisible Rabbit.

Note that I did not propose a solution, involving the First Amendment or otherwise.

In fact, I think the problem is more one of a culture gone crazy than one requiring some draconian Constitutional surgery. We need--somehow--to become the sort of people to whom this sort of incitement is culturally unacceptable. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects people from the consequences of their speech when those consequences involve public opprobrium. That process has to start through increasing awareness of the problem, which was the point of my OP.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Stochastic terrorism»Reply #23