[djsumdog]

Do you blame 4chan? Really? An emotionally disturbed person may have more input today in the Internet age, but the majority of 4chan users don't go out shooting mosques.

This was one fucked up Australian, from a country of over 30 million; and the first Aussie to commit a mass shooting since 1996.

I do not think it's right to place the blame on a bunch of random people saying things. They didn't murder all those people. Speech is not violence. Violence is violence, and that one guy decided to take it off the computer, hop across the pond, somehow get a ton of firearms in a country where they are heavily restricted, and then shoot up a bunch of innocent civilians.

There are millions of other Aussies and Kiwis who probably chat on the same networks he was on, and never take up violence. They may speak up against things they think are wrong or that they don't like, either online or in public spaces, but there is a big difference between speech/saying things and murder.

[Nursie]

The atmosphere of open denigration of others certainly seems to be contributing to the rash of violent alt-right and white-supremacist incidents we're seeing yes.

Do I 'blame' 4chan? Not in any absolute sense, especially as he did his live broadcast to 8chan. But I'm willing to say that I think participation in these online communities contributed, yes.

[Frondo]

Speech leads to violence, and even a somewhat limited reading of the history of genocides in the 20th century ought to make it difficult to dispute that.

If the Hutus hadn't been broadcasting anti-Tutsi sentiment for a few hundred days before the violence, it's tough to say that the Hutus would've suddenly risen up to kill about 70% of the Tutsi population there all of a sudden.

[djsumdog]

Speech also leads to civil rights, Gandi's campaign to free Indian from the Raj .. and sure you can say, "Well that speech didn't advocate violence."

What about The American Revolution? or unions/strikes? There are times in history where speech lead people to push through those tipping points, and sometimes they resulted in violent revolution and others in non-violent revolution. (and we're generally okay with the violent revolutions, so long as the 'right' side wins).

Even in your Hutus/Tutsi example, you're suggesting the Hutus used speech to persuade their people to commit violence? It's still the choice of the individuals, and eventually the group, to act violently.

Unless you're saying that with enough advertising, you remove peoples' agency. That in the face of constant advertising, individuals have less of a choice and subscribe more to group think.

Maybe freewill is an illusion and you can get people do do whatever you want with enough speech, propaganda and averts. But that's a much bigger issue of human will than speech.