stochastic terrorism

stochastic terrorism, the repeated use of hate speech or other vilifying, dehumanizing rhetoric by a political leader or other public figure that inspires one or more of the figure’s supporters to commit hate crimes or other acts of violence against a targeted person, group, or community. In legal terms, stochastic terrorism generally does not constitute incitement or solicitation to violence, which is a serious crime in many countries, because the speech involved lacks sufficient specificity. Incitement entails explicitly directing or encouraging an act of violence against a specific target at a particular time or place, thus immediately putting the target at an identifiable risk. In contrast, stochastic terrorists do not supply their followers with any detailed plan of attack, which means that the particular time and place of the eventual violence are unpredictable.

Origin of the term

The word stochastic is used in statistics to refer to something random, involving chance or probability. The term stochastic terrorism was coined in 2002 by the mathematician and risk analyst Gordon Woo, who identified anticipated media coverage and the resulting increase in public fear as motivating factors for apparently random acts of terrorism. The term later came to designate vitriolic speech that can provoke individually unpredictable acts of violence against a targeted person, group, or community.

Stochastic terrorism and social media

Because of the global extent of mass-media networks in the 21st century, messages by public figures can easily reach millions of people. Social media websites and applications in particular can facilitate stochastic terrorism by serving as “echo chambers” that strengthen users’ confirmation bias (the natural tendency to seek out or limit one’s attention to information that is consistent with one’s preexisting beliefs). Although most individuals, even those who agree with a vitriolic message, are not likely to perpetrate violent acts, the message’s amplification increases the likelihood that at least one individual will do so. The resulting crime is individually unpredictable but statistically probable. Thus, by propagating a hate-filled message, the speaker increases the likelihood of violence occurring at some point in the future.

Stochastic terrorism and heightened political tension

Stochastic terrorism becomes especially dangerous during times of already heightened political tension, as in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic, when violent extremists opposed the country’s vaccination program, and in the United States following the presidential election of 2020. When public figures vocalize violent language that may previously have been found only in remote corners of the Internet (such as encrypted chat rooms or message boards) or used only by proponents of radical conspiracy theories (such as QAnon), societal norms regarding acceptable behavior tend to break down, and violence becomes more widely tolerated.

Since the start of his U.S. presidential campaign in 2016, former president Donald Trump has frequently used language that encourages violence or threats of violence against a wide range of persons, groups, and communities, including Latinx and Muslim immigrants, African Americans, civil rights protesters, election workers, and the prosecutors and judges associated with civil suits and criminal indictments filed against him after the end of his presidency in 2021. One investigation by the news division of the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) identified 54 criminal acts or threats of violence from 2015 to 2020 during or after which Trump or his rhetoric was explicitly invoked. (Of the 54 acts, 41 were committed by self-identified Trump supporters and 13 by Trump opponents.) In addition, during Trump’s presidency, threats against Democratic and some Republican members of Congress and their families more than doubled, according to the U.S. Capitol Police.

One of the most cited examples of stochastic terrorism is then president Trump’s news conferences, public speeches, and social-media communications in the weeks leading up to the January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol. Following his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the presidential election of 2020, Trump’s false allegations of Democratic voter fraud became a battle cry for his most radicalized supporters. In several messages on Twitter (now X), Trump encouraged them to attend a rally in Washington, D.C., on January 6 to protest Congress’s scheduled certification of Biden’s victory. At the rally Trump gave a speech in which he again accused Democrats of stealing the election. He urged his supporters to “never give up” and “never concede.” He also said, “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” At the close of his speech, he directed supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, where they joined an already assembled crowd that included members of extremist groups. As the protesters grew in number and frenzy, they attacked and overwhelmed Capitol Police officers. The mob breached the building and vandalized and looted the interior, disrupting the certification proceedings.

Depending upon how its content and circumstances are interpreted, Trump’s January 6 speech may itself be viewed as a further act of stochastic terrorism or as a full-blown incitement to violence. On January 13 Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives on a charge of “incitement of insurrection,” but he was later acquitted by the Senate.

Lone-wolf individuals

The violence that results from stochastic terrorist speech has been linked most often to so-called lone-wolf individuals. Lone wolves are usually not associated with major terrorist organizations, though they may share many of such an organization’s goals and beliefs. Their independence makes them difficult to identify in advance of the crimes they may commit.

Four stages of stochastic terrorism

Law enforcement experts, sociologists, and psychologists often characterize stochastic terrorism as a process consisting of four stages, which may be designated as demonization, dehumanization, desensitization, and denial. The process begins with the stochastic terrorist blaming a person, group, or community for some egregious social ill or injustice—a charge that is often false or at least greatly exaggerated. With enough repetition of the charge, the target’s humanity is greatly diminished in the eyes of the speaker’s followers and is eventually displaced by the idea that the person, group, or community is simply an “other.” The next stage involves the speaker’s explicit or implicit call for violence against such an enemy. With repetition, the suggestion of violence ceases to be shocking and begins to be viewed as an acceptable and even a necessary reaction. In the final stage of the process, after the target has been violently attacked by one or more of the speaker’s supporters, the speaker denies responsibility for the crime, usually on the grounds that no specific plan of attack was ever offered. Some speakers even claim naivete, and any definitive motivation behind the speaker’s violent speech or missives is usually impossible to discern.

Criticism of the notion of stochastic terrorism

The notion of stochastic terrorism has been criticized by some legal scholars and conservative politicians for its apparent inconsistency with freedom of speech. In the United States some critics have dismissed the notion as a cynical strategy designed to effectively censor and ultimately criminalize the political speech of conservative leaders, in plain violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.