zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
This article is emblematic of everything wrong with "journalism" today. Regardless of what Garry wrote on Twitter (which I'm not defending), he didn't send the letters in question, which are the core of the incident. So some lunatic prints out a tweet and mails it to politicians at their home addresses, and the "journalist" spends a couple thousand words focusing on the tweet, and how the guy who wrote the tweet is rich.

Also, featuring the price of his liquor bottles (prominent in the first article about this by the same writer) is indicative of the level of pettiness involved. Maybe there's an actual story here, but this isn't it, and it's not clear that the story is more than "someone said something regrettable on Twitter".

>>timr+Y6
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...

Stochastic terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism

>>Tarrag+y8
"Stochastic terrorism" is just an excuse to crack down on free speech by conflating harsh criticism with violence because deranged idiots exist who might take any criticism of anybody as divine inspiration to commit crimes.

The standard for free speech in America is that if you're not calling for imminent and specific violence, then you're in the clear. The stochastic in stochastic terrorism does away with both the imminence and specificity; with a large enough population you'll have enough nuts that some of them may take even the most mellow criticism as a call to action.

>>lupusr+Ga
Calling something stochastic terrorism is speech... by your own logic, shouldn't you be defending their free-speech rights to use the term stochastic terrorism?

You say "crack down" but it's just an online comment here, which should be protected, right?

>>jmull+Yj
Free speech doesn't imply not being questioned or corrected, but I understand that some have that impression in these times. But that is exactly what free speech is, you speak, someone replies, you may have more to say, and so it goes.

"Die slow" or "I hope you die" are not threats. It's unconstructive venting.

>>workso+SD2
> Free speech doesn't imply not being questioned or corrected

Right. That's why the post I responded to shouldn't object to calling this "stochastic terrorism" on the basis of free speech. In the immediate discussion the argument is inherently self-contradictory.

It also muddies the meaning of free-speech from a profound principle to a cheap argument to club people with online when they criticize something in a way you disagree with.

>>jmull+1o3
OP for that comment is arguing for free speech not against, you're misunderstanding the comment.

> "Stochastic terrorism" is just an excuse to crack down on free speech

Implying the term is used to prevent free speech, and not trying to prevent the use of the term. I don't even understand how it's not obvious.

>>workso+a44
> ...not trying to prevent the use of the term. I don't even understand how it's not obvious.

The post says it's just an excuse to crack down on free speech, suggesting that it has no validity as an actual idea, that the term itself is invalid. Arguing that a term is always wrong is surely an attempt to prevent the use of that term.

What's more important to free speech.., that people can use the term "stochastic terrorism" to describe a tweet where they think it fits, or that people should not have to be subjected to having their tweets called "stochastic terrorism"?

To me, it's pretty clear: if you're trying to police language, you shouldn't be using free speech as the justification for that.

>>jmull+4k4
You're bending over backwards to prove a point that's not there, but I don't care enough to go in circles forever.