You may be educated or motivated enough to determine the wheat from the chaff, but a good deal of the (voting) population is not.
And we know what's right and wrong so we need to take swift and bold action against these cretins - I mean citizens - who are espousing the wrong views.
What a lovely free and liberal society we have. And it just so happens our kids are learning less and less in school [0]... darn, I guess we'll have to crackdown even harder and triple the budget....
[0] https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/state-test-r...
The term has been well known in public-policy discussions for at least a decade. The basic idea goes back a loooooong time, at least to 1170 when Henry II of England asked, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" (meaning Thomas Becket). Thus he ensured that someone would and did, even though he didn't know who, where, or how. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie could serve as a contemporary example that also predates what wiki-editors seem aware of. Offering a clear path to gain favor is almost as good as an order.
Nowadays, when a prominent US politician says "these people are {killing babies|sexualizing children|stealing an election} and something should be done about it" then it becomes increasingly likely that violent acts will follow, even though no specific or direct order was given. It's a way to rule by fear while supposedly retaining deniability, but anybody who has been paying attention can see right through it and it's beginning to look as though the legal system might catch up.
I am not a lawyer but we’ve had these same discourses during the 1960s (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)
Can you explain what you mean here, then?
I’m talking about the current legal system here like you, so I’m wondering what’s fundamentally so new that censorship is the only answer here?
Exactly what it says: the legal system has not caught up. Even in a post-Brandenburg world, the standard is still that the threat must be both explicit and imminent. They're still struggling with the "stochastic" part of stochastic terrorism, even though the phenomenon itself has existed for centuries.
> I’m talking about the current legal system here like you, so I’m wondering what’s fundamentally so new that censorship is the only answer here?
Never said, never implied, not even relevant in this particular sub-thread.
That’s not an answer. I already showed you where we have existing laws and precedent; so I ask again what’s different?
Or are you saying that the bar for inciting violence was considered too stringent?
Because the only legal lack I’m aware of is what to do when a President is the one that incites a rebellion.
> Never said, never implied, not even relevant in this particular sub-thread.
Fair. The sub-thread spawned from moderated speech but I agree moderation isn’t the same as censorship.
After all, the most violent political acts in the last few years in the USA were the Floyd riots. But do you really want to prosecute anyone who argues that there's a racism problem in America for "stochastic terrorism", because some people heard that and went looting? Seems obviously inflammatory and unwise.
Should you be held responsible if someone attacks "a prominent US politician" after reading your comment?
There are billion dollar industries designed to change your mind and get you to act against your best interest without you even recognising it, but people think they are "free thinkers".
But don't you dare silence me.
How do you feel about literacy tests for voting? Presumably you're all in.