Quote (fender @ Aug 14 2022 12:29pm)
unfortunately, you don't quite seem have the ability to make a crucial distinction here, so let me try to explain it to you in simple terms you can follow: there is a difference between LEGAL and MORAL accountability.
even the repeated inciting of vigilantism and terrorism will be difficult to prove as the sole motivation for such actions - especially if it's done indirectly, through lies and misrepresentations, which is why faux and other right wing media do it that way. their viewers still get the message though, as proven by the rise of threats and actual acts of terrorism committed.
that does, however NOT mean that any decent person, anyone who is NOT a fascist bootlicker, should try to downplay or even support this kind of despicable propaganda. yet here you are, twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend faux news' stochastic terrorism, their lies and propaganda.
the whole "b-b-but legally they are not responsible for what their unhinged viewers do" narrative is just a dumb pivot, and largely irrelevant to my point. fact is, they intentionally contribute to pushing those people over the edge, and this judge wouldn't be the first one to lose his life over it... imagine making excuses for such practices. disgusting really...
Morally speaking, they are still not responsible for what others do. Sounds like
you are the one that's twisting himself into a pretzel.