They used the term LARP a lot more literally than I expected.
Although the history of LARP as a legal defense is narrow, the authors share the concern that it may soon become commonplace. Early attempts at such a strategy have been made by a defendant acting alone or in loose cooperation with members of a fantasy group who knew each other only in the virtual world, claiming “artistic expression” to excuse threatening language.
I can see this being a big problem with memes in the immediate future. Does the FBI have a page where they attempt to distinguish edgy memes from genuine calls to violence? This is a relatively benign example, but there are TikToks where users pretend to have fantasies about taking officer's service weapon. Sure they're all jokes, but modern internet humor is deeply ironic; I'd imagine there are plenty of genuinely violent people making seemingly ironic memes. I'd also imagine that there are nonviolent memers disseminating genuine violent ideas and vice versa.
Well fuck the feds for snooping on all our conversations honestly. When we don't have privacy, people collectively engaging in edgy irony to the point you can't distinguish the signal from the noise provides people with a level of free speech.
"Posts on a public site...Complains about privacy"
What the hell you are going on about man. If you post something like "Hey, lets shoot some cops", or hell "lets start shooting ____" online you are giving up your right to privacy. Yes, the US legal system has means of taking the 'evidence' you posted online in front of a judge and getting a warrant. Via the warrant system nearly complete dismantling of your privacy can be compelled.
Neither of those things would be a basis for something like a search warrant because the threat is not specific and credible. It's not a crime to say, "Hey, let's shoot some cops". It would be a crime to say, "Hey, let's hang out in front of the local police station and shoot some cops tomorrow morning. Bring your guns."
In your imaginary world. In the real world telling the difference between a non-specific and credible threat commonly takes investigation, especially when one of the parties is brought up to law enforcement multiple times.
In addition law enforcement agencies, especially the local ones, are based on the whims of elected officials. If the local populace thinks they they aren't being tough enough on crime, then especially in smaller cities, they will be replaced.
Well the feds in this case is around 30 other countries doing the spying for them and then sharing the information so as to avoid domestic laws in their own country. France, Germany, Britain, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and obviously the U.S. are the current biggest players
It's only fair that the people do not comply, seeing as we know none of these countries have a problem with violating rights whenever they desire.
Because social media has taught people - especially young people - that views/clicks/likes/etc are equivalent to popularity and acceptance, so they need to do outrageous things to get the views.
If I had to guess I would saynpart of the intrusive-thoughts/OCD/impulse-control community. I've seen similar about swerving into oncoming traffic or walking off a ledge.
Intrisive thoughts are fairly common, and not related to a specific community or exclusive to any identifiable subgroup:
> These thoughts are part of being human, and need not ruin the quality of life. Treatment is available when the thoughts are associated with OCD and become persistent, severe, or distressing.
> One example of an aggressive intrusive thought is the high place phenomenon, the sudden urge to jump from a high place. A 2011 study assessed the prevalence of this phenomenon among US college students; it found that even among those participants with no history of suicidal ideation, over 50% had experienced an urge to jump or imagined themselves jumping from a high place at least once. A 2020 study carried out in Germany reported similar results.
I specifically mean the TikTok self-proclaimed community. Search #intrusivethoughts or find some videos and I'm sure the algo will start showing you more.
They don't have a page because they don't make the distinction. And, generally, once they're called in, have the idea of securing a conviction at any cost.
cf mens rea; in the financial context Matt Levine's "Money Stuff" column often points out that if people are doing something dodgy the worst thing (for any future defence) they can do is try to weasel-word it.
