The FBI has been using this definition for at least decade. The FBI's primer on Anarchist Extremism on their website is dated 2010 and uses very similar language.

Thanks. So what’s the deal with what Ken posted?

So I am unfamiliar with this person's other work. But as someone who is writing a book on the FBI and has written extensively, I disagree with his conclusions that there is nothing to be alarmed with here. However, I agree the issue is more complicated than twitter screenshots.

The FBI has for decades used definitions of terrorist threats the incorporate key elements First Amendment protected speech. The video is correct they are worded carefully not to say speech alone is a crime, but it still sends the message certain ideas lead to terrorism.

The FBI has used what's called radicalization theory, which posits that there is a process by which one becomes a violent extremists, the first step is adopting this "extremist ideas." The FBI then seeks to prevent terrorism before it happens.

I've written about why the combination of these categories plus radicalization theory is a recipe for political policing. inthesetimes.com/article/fbi…

I would also point there are ample examples of the FBI treating certain political points of view as evidence of terrorism. In the documents I obtained on the ISM they explicitly reference anti-capitalist, anti-global views as indicators of terrorism.

Saying this isn't different than other documents produced in the last 30 years isn't an untrue statement, but I did an entire report on FBI use of counterterrosim authorities against social movement from 2010-20 So not new doesn't mean no concerns rightsanddissent.org/fbi-spy…

I realize this is a lot of information, but this isn't a topic that lends itself easily to 180 characters.

And I realize now you were asking about Ken's article, not the video you shared, which is what I was responding to.