I hadn't heard the term "stochastic terrorism" prior to the murderous attack[1] at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, but it does help codify something that gets talked about but in sort of vague terms every time some sort of mass killing[1] takes place of this sort:<\/p>\n
'Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. In short,<\/i> remote-control murder by lone wolf.'<\/p>\n
On the one hand, it makes sense: demonize a certain group (gays, blacks, folk at abortion clinics, etc.), call them inhuman monsters who are destroying our religion \/ nation \/ babies, lather, rinse, repeat, and sooner or later<\/i> some person with loose screws is going to take Constitutionally-protected and plentifully-available gun and start shooting the monsters. "Statistically predictable but individually unpredictable."<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the lily-livered excuse of "Well, I certainly would never have approved of Xs being killed, even though I've been talking about how evil and reprehensible and un-American Xs are (and have i mentioned how they are destroying our religion \/ nation \/ babies?), so this is sadly only the result of a lone lunatic and can we stop talking about this so that next week I can go back to demonizing Xs again?" is contemptible, but the underlying question of "And what are you going to do about it?" is not, whether asked sincerely or with a evil half-smirk.<\/p>\n
The problem is that: <\/p>\n
– The speech involved has a legitimate (as in "legal") foundation as well.<\/b> It is overtly militating for a particular governmental action or election of people who will take such an action (outlawing gays, fighting crime, stopping abortion). One can disagree with such actions or their morality or constitutionality — but to espouse them is not to be committing a criminal act, and treating it as such would have significantly adverse effects on political and social discourse, across all the political and social spectra. <\/p>\n
One can argue that this simply gives cover to people who are intentionally<\/i> (vs negligently) committing "stochastic terrorism," but it's darned good cover, because there's no rational means of determining a bright line across which someone's statements go from "criticism" to "demonizing" with some indeterminate incremental add to the likelihood that someone's going to take a gun and start shooting at the demons. In part, that's because …<\/p>\n
– We are talking about a relatively rare phenomenon.<\/b> Yes, to take this particular example, there have been too many<\/i> killings of doctors and workers and visitors to clinics where abortions are performed, but these sorts of killings are still extremely infrequent compared to any number of other killings. The article linked notes 11 killings in the last 25 years. Those are all awful, but not (statistically) significant in the ocean of blood that this country swims in. That they have a further chilling effect is not pertinent; the question of "Okay, if everyone stopped criticizing Planned Parenthood today, what would be the likely reduction per year in killings of people at clinics where abortions are performed?"[2] would be extraordinarily difficult to SWAG because the number is so remarkably low.[3]<\/p>\n
Any attacks of this sort are too many attacks of this sort — but we're at numbers that are in the "noise" range.<\/p>\n
So let's get back to that fundamental question that, even if we assume "stochastic terrorism" has a basis behind it (I think it does), what do we do about it. This is not actually committing the bloody crime, nor even inciting directly to it. This is about creating an atmosphere, intentionally or negligently, where someone (with or without loose wires in their head, though almost by definition it's someone a bit, to use the scientific term, whackadoodle) will take a violent action. What is the responsibility for creating such an atmosphere, and what can be done about it?<\/p>\n
Taking this particular incident, there's perhaps more of a directly line between a particular action and this particular reaction than is normally (to the extent that these things can be called "normal") the case: the David Daleiden "baby parts" videos, and a killer who talks about "No more baby parts"[4] as his motivation. The videos are pretty clearly a hatchet job, both in terms of their being deceptively pieced together, and because of their intent to imply criminal wrongdoing where none was occurring.<\/p>\n
What is the solution? Should Daleidan be charged for incitement to murder? What if he'd simply stated an actual truth, either that fetal body parts are (quite and explicitly legally) donated to research labs, or (as a hypothetical) that there was actual criminal wrongdoing uncovered? Would such veracity, even if it led to the same attack, be a defense?<\/p>\n
Take it a step further. While GOP pols have hopped on this bandwagon, the one most known for it is Carly Fiorina, who actually embroidered further what she claimed she saw when she watched them. Do we want her indicted as an accessory before the fact of murder? Really? What if she actually had seen that footage in the videos, and proclaimed truthfully such a monstrous thing? Should she still be indicted if her condemnation of an actual evil led to someone committing a separate evil?<\/p>\n
Let me offer two counter-examples from the other side of the ideological fence[5]: During the Occupy demonstrations, there was a lot of harsh rhetoric about the "1%" — how they were destroying the country, driving people in to serfdom, robbing food from the poor, etc. If there were assaults and murders of the wealthy or their institutions, or if the Koch Brothers were to be assassinated, would those Occupy speakers, or their passionate supporters, or people who have demonized the Kochs as the root of all political evil in this country be similarly indictable? Even if they were factually correct?<\/p>\n
Or consider the arguments of those who say that demonization of the police and police abuses has or will lead to murderous attacks on cops. Should those who have criticized the police be indicted for such criticism? Should only the most vehement or least temperate be so indicted?<\/p>\n
Or, if not criminal penalties, what about civil liability and "wrongful death" civil suits? Should Carly Fiorina or David Daleidan be sued by the families of those killed in Colorado Springs this past weekend? If so, how do you prevent anyone who offers any criticism of some person or institution who is, somewhere down the road, attacked for it for being similarly sued? Is that sort of society workable? Who does it benefit?<\/p>\n
I don't see a legal basis for tackling "stochastic terrorism". What other basis is there?<\/p>\n
The only one I can see is social: morally and rhetorically condemning those who engage in it. The problem with that<\/i> is twofold:<\/p>\n
First, we already do it. People have been talking about how "demonizing Xs will inevitably lead to whackos or weirdos or bullies or fringe types attacking, even killing Xs" forever. It doesn't seem to have reduced the rhetoric, on any issue. While I tend to perceive more inflammatory or demonizing dialog from the Right, it is certainly (as the counter-examples above note) not absent from the Left.<\/p>\n
And this is nothing new; one can argue the politics of Atwater and Rove were responsible for systemizing demonizing rhetoric for the GOP, but as an "amateur" sport it has been around as long as the Republic (and far longer). <\/p>\n
Second, it's still an extremely murky line. If someone were to attack or kill Bryan Fisher tomorrow, would my repeated rhetorical criticism of him or referring to him as a "dolt" (and a dangerous dolt at that) be the foundation for my having some responsibility for his death? Certainly I can claim I don't want anyone to attack or kill him, but knowing that there are crazy people out there, am I taking a risk if I assert, sincerely, that Fisher's theocratic ideals, if fulfilled, would lead to an end to American democracy and the installation of a brutal religion-based dictatorship?<\/p>\n
What becomes a safe criticism? Even if I avoid talking about the person,<\/i> certainly even a nice person can have bad ideas<\/i> and policies,<\/i> and someone can pick up on that accusation and run with it.<\/p>\n
And sincerity in concern is no help. The definition of "stochastic terrorism" relies on intent. How do I prove my intent, or disprove someone suggesting that my goal is not to incite some "random actors" to do something horrible. Knowing that there are people out there who can and will do such things means that even if I don't intend<\/i> such results, I am being willfully negligent<\/i> by not anticipating such results. <\/p>\n
I dunno. It may be that people acting badly — and even people intentionally committing stochastic terrorism — are a price we pay for open discussion and criticism. Putting bounds on what people can say for fear that it may "incite random actors" seems extraordinarily imprecise and dangerous in its own way. Besides condemning people who demonize others (without, somehow, becoming open to the charge of demonizing the demonizers), what is one to do?<\/p>\n
———-<\/p>\n
[1] There is understandable anger about portraying this as "mass killings" vs "terrorism," part of that anger showing up in the very discussion about "stochastic terrorism." It's difficult for me to move past the motivation of the individual involved — which appears<\/i> to have been to stop activities at a specific location, not to instill terror in all Planned Parenthood clinics — to the question of the motivation of those who "stochastically" saw this as an inevitable and ultimately desirable outcome.<\/p>\n
[2] The rejoinder from the anti-abortion folk would be that millions of killings of people occur at such clinics, in the form of abortions themselves. I disagree, but the very emotional basis of such a counter-charge is indicative of how difficult it is to simply chalk this all up to firebrand politicians and ideologues with a video editing system. <\/p>\n
[3] There are other forms of physical and emotional assault and terrorism that are carried out against such clinics, from vitriolic rants on sidewalks against women trying to visit there, for whatever reason, to phoned-in threats<\/i> of violence. Again, it's difficult to say to what extent these can be stopped by any sort of restriction on unfairly critical rhetorical attacks on such organizations.<\/p>\n
[4] I will assume, for sake of argument, that this remark has been accurately reported and that the Daleidan videos were the casus belli<\/i> here.<\/p>\n
[5] These are hypothetical. I am unaware of any explicit murderous attacks on the Ultra-Rich during or after the Occupy movement, though the Anarchist violence of the turn of the previous century provides some background. Similarly, there is no statistical evidence that rhetorical condemnation of the police or police abuses has led to an upsurge in the deaths of police officers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/a>
\nChristianist Republicans Systematically Incited Colorado Clinic Assault<\/a><\/span>
\nAfter months of verbal assault against Planned Parenthood and against women more broadly, Republican Christianists have gotten what they were asking for—bloodshed. On November 27, a mass shooting l…\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\nView on Google+<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
