Stochastic terrorism

Stochastic describes something random, involving chance or probability.[1][2]

Terrorism involves an unlawful use of violence or intimidation to further political, social, or ideological goals.[3]

Stochastic harm occurs when the cause (hazard) and its effect (harm) are indirectly linked by a probabilistic relationship. The idea of stochastic harm was first published in 1978, it originally applied to the unintended negative effects of medical procedures using ionizing radiation,[4] such as radiation therapy for cancer when the treatment causes another type of cancer. The term "stochastic harm" has also been generalized to describe harm related to environmental problems such as climate change [5][6] and some types of disinformation.[7]

Although stochastic terrorism is considered an academic term without a formal legal definition,[8] it is differentiated from other forms of terrorism due to its public, indirect, and seemingly random nature.

1. Speech: A public figure or group disseminates violent, inflammatory rhetoric via mass-media, directed at people or groups of people, sometimes suggesting or legitimizing the use of violence.[8] This speech tends to be protected due to the use of ambiguous coded language, dog whistles, jokes, hints, and other subtext in statements.[9][10][8] Other themes identified include black and white good vs. evil narratives [11] as well as painting an enemy as a mortal threat, which have been compared to the radicalization techniques used by terrorist groups.[12][13] These attacks are often repeated and amplified inside a media echo chamber.[14][15]
2. Speaker(s): Typically the speaker is an influential political or media figure, who is referred to as the "stochastic terrorist" for his or her alleged indirect culpability for the attack.[16][15][8] The instigator(s) or "stochastic terrorist(s)" may or may not knowingly use this technique to attack and intimidate enemies, nonetheless, the effect remains the same. The public figure can plausibly disclaim any subsequent attack, as their words were not an explicit call for violence, and because of the lack of a direct organizational link between the instigator and perpetrator of the attack.[17][8] The public figure cannot be prosecuted for his or her statements so long as they do not meet the legal definition of incitement. This is the key distinction between stochastic terrorism and other forms of terrorism. In the U.S., the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio held that violent, inflammatory speech cannot be criminalized unless it is intended to, and likely to, result in imminent lawless action.[9] However, Kurt Braddock warns that speech can be quite dangerous even if legal.[16]
3. Inspiration: An individual or group, without any ties to known terrorist groups, hears the speech and becomes motivated to commit violence against the target of the speech, believing it will further a political or ideological goal.[9][18]
4. Attack: An attacker commits an act of terrorism that could include physical violence, threats, or other acts meant to harm, instill fear, intimidate.[16] The victims may receive or fear physical attacks, (online) harassment, and death threats.[19] This can have a chilling effect, as many victims do not have the resources for adequate security.[20]
5. Probability: While difficult to predict each individual act of violence due to the disconnected chain of causality, the speech makes threats and terror attacks more likely. These attacks observed as a collection have a statistically valid relationship, even if individual attacks are too random (stochastic) to predict precisely.[21]

In 2002, the term was first used by Gordon Woo,[22] although his use had a different definition and focus than what has become the current meaning of the term.[8]

Credit for the first use of the term as it is used today is given to the blogger, G2geek, on the Daily Kos platform in 2011, when defininng it to mean: the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable, but individually unpredictable, with plausible deniability for those creating media messaging.[23][16][8][24]

Prior to 2016, "stochastic terrorism" was considered an "obscure" academic term. During an August 9, 2016 campaign rally, then-candidate Donald Trump remarked "If [Hillary Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know." These comments were widely condemned as instigating violence and described in the media as "stochastic terrorism", further popularizing the term.[25][26][16]

Counterterrorism techniques such as attitudinal inoculation can help explain to a broad audience how radicalization and manipulation works, helping to blunt the impact of messages that increase violent tendencies.[16][13] Seth Jones argues that labeling domestic terrorist groups, similar to labeling of international groups, would be helpful, although he acknowledges that most right-wing violence is perpetrated by lone wolves.[27] Rachel Kleinfeld advocates for increasing the penalties of violent actions or threats against elected officials, election workers, and other essential personnel for the functioning of a democracy to a specially-protected class similar to how hate crimes are classified.[28]

In his book Words on Fire (2020), author Helio Fred Garcia describes the 2009 murder of George Tiller to be an example of stochastic terrorism, as many conservative news opinion shows and talk radio shows repeatedly demonized him for his administration of post-viability abortions.[25] For example, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, during his evening opinion show The O'Reilly Factor referred to Tiller as "Tiller the Baby Killer" on various occasions.[26][29]

In their 2017 book Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism, criminologist Mark S. Hamm and sociologist Ramón Spaaij describe ISIS,[8] Anwar al-Awlaki, and Alex Jones as guilty of stochastic terrorism.[24]^: 157 In the 2010 Oakland freeway shootout, Byron Williams was said to be en route to offices of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tides Foundation, planning to commit mass murder, "indirectly enabled by the conspiracy theories" of Glenn Beck and Alex Jones.[24] They also cite the 2012 shooting at the Family Research Council.[24]

The Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot in 2020 has been described as an example of stochastic terrorism.[9][13][8]

In the wake of escalating attacks on the LGBT community in the early 2020s, including bomb threats on children's hospitals and the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, right-wing activists such as Matt Walsh and Chaiya Raichik of Libs of TikTok have been accused of stochastic terrorism.[30][31][32][33]

The May 2022 Buffalo shooting [18][34][35] and the August 2022 Cincinnati FBI field office attack have been cited as examples of stochastic terrorism.[36][37][38][39][40]

The perpetrator of the October 2022 attack on Paul Pelosi stated he was looking for Nancy Pelosi and hoping to intimidate other democratic lawmakers, actions that have been described stochastic terrorism.[11][13][22]

• Conspiracy theory – Attributing events to secret plots instead of more probable explanation
• Demonization – Characterization of individuals, groups, or political bodies as evil
• False accusation – Claim or allegation of wrongdoing that is untrue
• Genocide justification – Attempts to claim genocide is a moral action
• Hate speech – Speech that expresses hatred towards individuals or groups
• Moral panic – Fear that some evil threatens society
• Online hate speech – Speech published online that expresses hatred towards individuals or groups
• Radicalization – Social process by which people arrive at extreme views
• Scapegoating – Practice of singling out any party for unmerited negative treatment or blame