zlacker

"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+(OP)
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?

>>lupusr+(OP)
> "Stochastic terrorism" is just an excuse to crack down on free speech by conflating harsh criticism with violence

"Die slow motherfuckers" is harsh criticism?

>>jmull+i9
I have not advocated for people calling something stochastic terrorism to be brought up on charges, so blow it out your ass.

>>Tarrag+ob
You can say anything as long as you add a footnote saying "This is not intended as a threat" apparently.

>>astola+7w
I hear that "just kidding" works exactly the same way.

>>Tarrag+ob
As far as criticism goes, it takes some creative effort to get much harsher than that. It is far beyond constructive criticism; the target is asserted to be far past salvaging so the only good thing that could happen to them is a bad death.

I guess maybe you think it isn't criticism at all because it's not constructive criticism. But it's certainly criticism, no reasonable person could construe it as anything less than critical. And because it falls short of a specific and imminent threat, it's legal political speech.

>>lupusr+(OP)
> 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.

Legally, yes. Socially? That's never been the standard. There is no principle in the US that says everybody has to be cool with anything people say short of calling for imminent violence.

>>jmull+i9
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+ct2
> 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+ld3
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+uT3
> ...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+o94
You're bending over backwards to prove a point that's not there, but I don't care enough to go in circles forever.

>>jmull+o94
It's quite telling that you don't seem to understand that someone might dislike some speech yet not want to ban it