The trial has become something of a test of what happens when certain far-out strains of digital-age American radicalism collide with the criminal justice system.
Here's the thing I'm curious about: If this defense is even remotely successful, and they can show that his state of mind was caused by the absolute nonsense he was consuming for news, do you think laws will change about what claims can be made without proof on the internet? Screaming "fire" on the internet and whatnot.