so the shooter was most likely radicalized by all the left wing rhetoric claiming Trump is hitler, Trump is a fascist, Trump is going to gas the trans people, etc etc. we saw politicians like Nancy pelosi calling for uprisings, staffers insisting that people "take one for the team" and shoot the president.
Now that someone has taken action on this violent rhetoric, could Trump sue for damages against Nancy Pelosi and her ilk? would he have a case?
EDIT: by just world, I mean in America where the justices actually enforce the law.
Since yesterday, I’ve seen people chattering about so-called “stochastic terrorism”, which seems to be a theory under which such statements could (potentially, I don’t think it’s happened yet) be prosecuted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
Personally I don’t think 1st amendment protections for these kinds of statements should ever be legally reconsidered, but I do see the validity in places like X/KiA2 (i.e. self or community moderation) putting limits on them. When you allow insanity like that to take over it drowns out all the sanity and you’re just left with useless noise
'Stochastic terrorism' is just the left pretending that they're actually women and can read men's minds, despite men telling them that, no, that's not what they meant.
You laugh, but that's what it basically boils down to - ignoring what people are saying and instead reading what they're actually IMplYiNG.
It's interesting to realize just how many leftist argument/debate tactics assume a female frame.
Similar to the ideas behind “hate crimes” sentencing enhancements, but look where ignoring that slow march towards tyranny has gotten us.
Also somewhat similar to how Alex Jones was prosecuted - his guilt was predetermined by the “actions of those he inspired”, and a default judgement against him was rendered before he could even defend his statements. The purpose of the whole charade was to, much like the notions of “hate crimes” or “stochastic terrorism”, cut the knees off freedom of speech and just determine how hard they want to twist the knife in each specific case. Same thing with making Assange finally accept a guilty plea. The first step to the new world order is overturning the precedent of the old
Edit - one further note I thought about the other day and think is relavent here:
This is also probably why the selective publishing of “manifestos” always tends to reek something fierce - the entire point is to build the idea in our minds that a chain of guilt can be established between speakers (like AJ) and unrelated others, for the actions of others (like whatever nutjob or patsy can be rounded up to commit the heinous act) through attribution of “cause” in the manifesto (“I’m doing this because Alex Jones / Trump / etc made me think it was a good idea!”)
There's no such thing as that.The term was invented by media fucktards.
Oh, so exactly what the left has been doing for over 8 years to Trump.