[This is a shortened version of this article which was originally posted on My Substack. If you wish to read the full story you can Subscribe now for Free]
Chaya Raichik is a Domestic Stochastic Terrorist. That’s not a question, as far as I’m concerned that’s a fact. She has developed a platform on Xitter called “Libs of TikTok” that smears and defames LGBTQ persons, accusing them of sex crimes, “grooming”, “indoctrination” and “mutilation” in an effort to gin up hate, resentment and fear of that community and foster attacks, death threats and bomb threats against them.
I’ve previously written that Raichik was completely unable to defend or explain herself when interviewed by Taylor Lorenz of the Washington Post, but this isn’t about what she says personally, it’s about what she’s done on her social media channel.
The problem is that under current free speech rules - what Ms. Raichik is doing is largely legal because there is a giant hole in the law.
There was also quite a long section where Lemon and Musk faced off on the issue of Moderation vs Censorship. Musk argued that “Moderation” is just a propaganda word for “Censorship” and he repeatedly defended not using moderation against Hate Speech by arguing “Is it legal?” when Lemon showed him sample posts of Anti-semitism on Xitter.
Death Threats, threats across Interstate Communications, Defamation [including wrongly accusing someone of a crime]. Harassment, Stalking, and International Terrorism are all illegal.
If you were to start publishing rants against a social/racial/political or religious group arguing that they are “dangerous predators”, “deviants” and “criminals” who need to be stopped - who are harming children - and you were able to radicalize people to strike out in retaliation on their own against that group, we would generally consider that to be Terrorism.
Radicalisation is defined as the process by which people come to support terrorism and extremism and, in some cases, to then participate in terrorist groups. There is no obvious profile of a person likely to become involved in extremism or a single indicator of when a person might move to adopt violence in support of extremist ideas. The process of radicalisation is different for every individual and can take place over an extended period or within a very short time frame.
Individuals may be susceptible to recruitment into violent extremism by radicalisers. Violent extremists often use a persuasive rationale and charismatic individuals to attract people to their cause. The aim is to attract people to their reasoning, inspire new recruits, embed their extreme views and persuade vulnerable individuals of the legitimacy of their cause.
This can put a young person or adult at risk of being drawn into criminal activity and has the potential to cause significant harm. Children, young people and adults may become vulnerable to exposure to, or involvement with, groups or individuals who advocate violence as a means to a political or ideological end.
People can be introduced to radicalization by:
-
accessing, and engaging with, propaganda material that they find on or offline, which promotes and spreads messages of hate or discourages peace;
-
misunderstanding or holding a misguided view of other people and communities, religious scriptures and texts or political manifestos and policies;
-
feeling resentment, jealousy, anger or a sense of injustice towards another individual, a group of people, or against a political or religious group.
Things to consider about radicalization:
Holding different views, whether they be religious, social or political, does not mean that somebody is radical. The concern is when somebody with an extreme view acts, or intends to act, upon their view/s in a way that is harmful to themselves or others. You should always use your professional judgment and, if you are in any doubt, seek advice.
So, talk is just that, talk - but action is action. When someone’s angry rhetoric begins to cause actual harm, it transfers from “free speech” to radicalization.
In fact, using social media to directly inspire “Lone Wolf” attacks is exactly how ISIS has been functioning for years.
The London attacker, Khalid Masood, is believed to have acted alone in carrying out what UK officials are calling a “copycat,” or “ISIS-inspired” attack.
At the same time, a tweet from ISIS shows the group is taking responsibility for the incident, referring to Masood, though not by name, as a “soldier of Islamic state.”
How can both be true?
ISIS may be losing money and losing ground in some of its biggest strongholds, but they have one powerful, unpredictable weapon: Social media. With the rise of online or remote radicalization, would-be extremists don’t ever need to make contact with ISIS figures, or even deeply understand their motives, to carry out the next big attack.
There are still some big questions in the London investigation. Masood was known to police as having ties to extremism, and he had a violent history. But so far, no direct connection has been made between ISIS and the attacker. The reality is, there doesn’t need to be one. Some of the most devastating attacks in the Western world as of late have been of the “lone wolf” variety, including the shootings in Orlando and San Bernardino; and the truck attacks in Nice and Berlin. ISIS media regularly encourages these attacks and recommends locations and methods.
After 86 people were killed in the Nice truck attack in July 2016, ISIS said in a statement the assailant was acting “in response to calls to target nationals of the coalition which is fighting the Islamic State.”
Now we’ve had a “Multiple Wolf” attack take place in Moscow kill over 130 people. We don’t yet know if this attack was inspired by social media or direct contact with ISIS-K. Either option is equally likely.
So this brings us to Chaya Raichik and what has been happening when she complains about “grooming” taking place in specific schools. Raichik, despite having no experience in education, and having no children of her own, has been a cause celebre among the Right wing. Her posts were used by Florida’s Ron Desantis in the crafting of that state’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill. And when she criticizes the students or teachers at a specific school - it does cause action.
[Transcript from the video]
The real problem here is not that some random 28-year-old got on the internet and started tweeting bigoted shit. The problem is that a lot of people latched onto it, take what she tweets as gospel, and it is now leading to very real consequences. Not just the don’t say gay bill, but consequences that actively and immediately endanger childrens’ lives. Because when Libs of TikTok finds a target, threats of violence are quick to follow.
Most notably, when she posts about schools, b-mb threats against those schools quickly follow. We already talked about the incident when she shared a post about a school librarian in Tulsa and, shortly afterward, several schools in the district received repeated b-mb threats. That’s just the beginning.
In March 2023, she targeted Northwest Junior High in Iowa. The school then received multiple b-mb threats, forcing it to evacuate students two days in a row. In August 2023, she targeted Ellen Ochoa Elementary School. Afterwards, the school received multiple b-mb threats. In November 2023, she targeted Witchcraft Heights Elementary School (which, first of all, iconic name) and the school received three b-mb threats, forcing students to evacuate. Her most active month so far has been in September 2023. That month, she targeted the Anoka-Hennepin School District here in Minnesota. The next day, the school received a b-mb threat. She then targeted Red Oak School which then received multiple b-mb threats.
That same month she targeted Pulaski High School, which received multiple b-mb threats the following week. That same month she targeted Cherry Creek School District, after which the school received b-mb threats. She targeted Denver Public Schools, one day later the district received several b-mb threats. She targeted Brownsville Elementary, the school received a b-mb threat the next day. She targeted Tigard Tualatin School District, the district received b-mb and sh--ting threats in the days that followed.
Over and over and OVER again, this woman who claims to be so concerned for the well-being of our nation’s children has targeted the schools where they live and learn, disrupting their learning environment but also putting them very literally in harm’s way. And given the reality in this country where children are massacred in their schools regularly, these threats are not idle, and they are never taken lightly, not by the school districts nor by the children that are actively terrorized when they are made to feel unsafe in the place they thought was supposed to be safe. The frequency with which this happens paints a very clear pattern. When she targets a school district, b-mb threats follow.
Further Raichik has also inspired threats against Children’s Hospitals.
And it’s not just the children in the schools she targets that are unsafe. She also targets children’s hospitals. You know, the ones literally saving children’s lives?? In August, 2022, she targeted Boston Children’s Hospital, which ranks the best in the nation for pediatric diabetes and neurosurgery, after which the hospital received three b-mb threats, which were deemed credible by the FBI and resulted in three separate charges
In July 2022, she targeted the Seattle Children’s Hospital and in response the hospital reported needing heightened security including panic buttons and full time security guards. And on and on and on and on, this woman who claims to be so concerned with the safety and well-being of children incites her followers to terrorize the places they live, learn, and seek medical treatment.
This. Has never. Been. About. The children. I rest my f---ing case.
Wouldn’t we consider it a terrorist hate crime to paint a Swastika on the wall of a Synagogue? It’s not just vandalism, it’s a symbol that dehumanizes those it attacks — and it’s an active threat against them. Wouldn’t we consider it a hate crime to paint the “N-word” on the wall of Black Church? Wouldn’t we consider it a hate crime to paint “F-g” on the wall of a Gay nightclub?
Why don't we consider it a terrorist hate crime to scrawl “Groomer” and “Predator” all over the internet?
[And yes, it’s hate speech to dehumanize someone by calling them “vermin” because they may have committed the misdeamner infraction of “improper entry.”]
Here’s a chart that generally documents the number of actually deadly acts of violence which have occurred recently due to hard Left and Right-wing rhetoric.
In the full version of this story, I include a list of Bomb Threats inspired by Libs of TikTok from Media Matters.
Oklahoma Christian-Nationalist Wing Nut Superintendent Ryan Walters has granted Raichik a position on a Library Media Advisory Committee, even though she has no experience with this from her experience as a New York Realtor. Two weeks after that appointment, a nonbinary student, Nex Benedict who had been receiving multiple incidents of harassment died after being attacked and knocked unconscious in a bathroom — which they had to use because of Oklahoma rules requiring students to use the bathroom that matches their birth certificate — at a school where Libs Of TikTok been specifically targeting students and teachers.
Benedict had gone to the hospital after the attack and seemed alert — but after being discharged and going home, they collapsed and died. Inexplicably, the medical examiner has stated that their death was the result of “suicide.”
The district attorney’s office reviewed reports from law enforcement about the February 7 fight in the bathroom at Owasso High School and Nex’s death on February 8 to determine whether charges should be filed, the release said.
In his statement, Kunzweiler said in Nex’s autopsy report, the medical examiner noted superficial injuries consistent with the fight but “did not uncover any evidence of an internal injury (blunt force / trauma related) which caused or resulted in death.”
The medical examiner ruled Nex’s death a suicide in an autopsy summary earlier this month. The full autopsy is expected to be released on March 27, as CNN previously reported.
Police also found “brief notes, written by Benedict, which appeared to be related to suicide,” the DA’s statement said.
[…]
According to family and friends, Nex identified as non-binary, and their death drew national attention, with multiple vigils taking place for the teen throughout the US, as advocates pointed to a heightened and hostile climate against the LGBTQ+ community.
“Based upon the investigation of the Owasso Police Department, I am in agreement with their assessment that the filing of juvenile charges is not warranted,” Kunzweiler said in the release. “From all of the evidence gathered, this fight was an instance of mutual combat. I do not have a reasonable belief that the State of Oklahoma could sustain its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt if charges were presented for prosecution.”
So the officials have determined that they can’t link a physical cause from Benedict’s concussion to their collapse, yet, and apparently they also can’t seem to link the repeated harassment they received to their “brief notes” related to suicide.
What they haven’t explained is how you kill yourself by spontaneously collapsing after having been attacked and harrassed? Make that make sense.
[Edit: The Medical Examiner’s report on Nex Benedict's death has been released.]
As previously reported, Benedict's autopsy cites suicide as the cause of death due to combined toxicity of drugs commonly known as Prozac and Benadryl.
"The manner of death is a medical opinion as part of the death certification primarily for the purpose of vital statistics. The manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, as such decisions are outside the scope of the Medical Examiner’s role," the autopsy report states.
The full toxicology report states the concentrations of each drug found in Benedict's system: between 1.2 and 1.9 mcg/mL fluoxetine and between 15 and 25 mcg/mL of diphenhydramine. If used appropriately, a therapeutic level of fluoxetine would not exceed 0.5 mcg/mL.
Published research indicates an excess of 8 mcg/mL of diphenhydramine can be fatal. The average blood concentration in a fatal diphenhydramine overdose may be as high as 15 mcg/mL. Fluoxetine can be dangerous at high blood concentrations, especially in combination with diphenhydramine, by inducing a potentially fatal effect known as serotonin syndrome.
The autopsy also details injuries Benedict possibly sustained in the fight but which the autopsy notes were not lethal. They include trauma to Benedict’s head and neck, torso and extremities.
[Uh ok. They died of Prozac and Benedryl? Were they advised that double-dosing and combining these could be fatal? How is this “suicide” exactly? And if this was an accidental OD inspired by the fight — wouldn’t there still be liability?]
Can the judgment of the medical examiner and the police be trusted in the midst of an Anti-LGBTQ community? I mean, this smells like the trials of the murderers of Emmet Till which were conducted with an all-white jury, who — of course — acquitted the defendants. Can there be justice for Nex Benedict in that community?
I suspect not.
If Raichik — who is apparently an Orthodox Jew — was from a foreign nation and was criticizing Americans as being “child predators and “molestors” who celebrated when bomb threats and violence actually occurred which was inspired by her rhetoric, everything about this would be different.
That would be “international terrorism” - but as she is an American, she has not violated the law because there is no law against “domestic terrorism.”
Though the person responsible for the murder of eleven people at a Pittsburgh synagogue shouted “All Jews must die,”11 his indictment included no terrorism charge.12 The same is true for the man who murdered nine Black churchgoers at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, seeking to increase racial tensions.13 So too for those responsible for the murder of Heather Heyer and for other violence committed at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, “despite then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions having initially described the . . . attack as meeting ‘the definition of domestic terrorism.’”14
This raises the question: why no terrorism charges? The answer is straightforward: there is no federal charge of domestic terrorism.15 “Domestic terrorism” itself evades easy definition. Terrorism is politically or ideologically motivated violence.16 But domestic terrorism is defined by its distinction from international terrorism. Its application focuses on whether the ideology or conduct at issue is international or domestic in nature. Though the USA PATRIOT Act17 defines domestic terrorism, it attaches no sanctions to such conduct.18 Some argue that the laws governing international terrorism sufficiently cover domestic terrorist conduct.19 Others argue that significant reform and expanded authority are necessary in order to respond adequately to this growing threat.20
The current legal regime creates a quandary for law enforcement and prosecutors: either stretch the current regime to cover domestic terrorist conduct and risk pushback from judges, juries, and the public or do not pursue terrorism charges and lose credibility in the efforts to combat domestic terrorism. In a political climate marked by extreme polarization, decreasing trust in institutions, and increasing acceptance of political violence as legitimate, the former is a perilous choice while the latter prevents the government from credibly calling out and labeling domestic terrorism as such — something the public demands. The legitimacy concerns arising from this context are an underexplored piece of the current debate but are crucial to consider when thinking about the Executive’s ability to respond adequately to domestic terrorism. Congressional authorization of existing tools to be used in the domestic terrorism context is therefore necessary to ensure the Executive maintains legitimacy in addressing this pressing threat.
So Raichik can function literally as a radicalizer, exactly like a leader of Al Qaeda or ISIS who is striving mostly to inspire “lone wolf” attacks, but not suffer any of the scrutiny or consequences for it.
Although she usually denies that these threats and attacks are inspired by her posts — even when there is a direct correlation between them — there are also times that she celebrates that correlation. [Again from Transciption]
When asked to answer for this, she insists that the threats had nothing to do with her followers. This despite the fact that in her Twitter profile photo she’s posing with a newspaper headlined “when Libs of TikTok posts, threats increasingly follow” with a great big smile on her face. This woman. This champion and defender of children. Smiles gleefully knowing that her actions actively put your children in harm’s way, in a repeated, clear, easy to follow pattern.
She celebrates the harm she’s causing. Just like ISIS who claimed Khalid Masood as a “soldier” even though they never had any direct contact with him. That fact alone should be actionable. There should be consequences for this, at least as a civil liability if not criminally. Raichik is just one person, imagine if there were *dozens* of accounts like this peppering the web? Imagine if foreign actors such as China, Iran, North Korea or Russia started using their trolls and bots to amplify this rhetoric as a destabilization tactic?
The point isn’t to claim that Raichik is as deadly dangerous as ISIS, yet. Clearly that isn’t the case. But how far away are we from people not sending bomb-threats, but actually sending bombs? How far away are we from someone marching into a school with an AK or an AR and going after the teacher in the classroom with the Pride flag. Because he has to “save the children.”
And let’s remember, this already did happened with “Pizza-gate” — and it also happened with Islamaphobic rhetoric turned into the Oslo Norway attack by Anders Breivik that killed 77 people and the Christchurch Mosque attack in New Zealand that killed 51 people — so it’s not beyond reason to consider that it could happen again. It could. In fact, it probably will.
As we move into more and more polarization, more and more extremism — the threat of a “bloodbath” if the election doesn’t go a certain way — and more examples of direct racial, sexual and gender-based violence — shouldn’t we consider taking some preventative measures and steps — better connecting the cause of violent threatening rhetoric to it’s resulting effects and close the domestic terrorism loophole — now before we really do have a full-on deadly domestic terror threat sweeping the nation?
You can join me debating the issues and the facts inside the belly of the beast on my Facebook Group: Army for Truth.
Have a listen to my new Vocal Cover — "Girl On Fire" originally by Alicia Keys and check out my new Patreon where you can download copies of my covers and original songs. You can also stream tracks from my previous Solo CD from ReverbNation.
And You can send Funds to Support me via Paypal