Star Member Atticus (14,997 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217756727
Could a statute be drafted that would establish "stochastic terrorism" as a crime while
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 (8,262 posts)
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.
Star Member Atticus (14,997 posts)
3. I asked a question. You respond with an attack. nt
Star Member Atticus (14,997 posts)
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.
RockRaven (12,351 posts)
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?"
Star Member Fiendish Thingy (12,193 posts)
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?
Star Member Atticus (14,997 posts)
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 (2,386 posts)
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.
Response to WarGamer (Reply #1)Fri Mar 24, 2023, 03:57 PMWarGamer's reckless attack constitutes stochastic terrorism and is liable to get Atticus killed--there ought to be a law against that.
Star Member Atticus (14,997 posts)
3. I asked a question. You respond with an attack. nt
WarGamer (8,262 posts)
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...
Apparently "The Party" talking points of the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have gone out:
"Stochastic terrorism"
Don't watch PMSNBC nor mainstream news, but noticed this "stochastic terrorism" has been repeated ad nauseum by the DUmmies as of late.
Star Member Atticus (14,997 posts)
Could a statute be drafted that would establish "stochastic terrorism" as a crime while
not infringing on freedom of speech?
Can't intent to cause violence be proven with as much certainty as it is for other offenses?