Neo-Nazi argues that troll storm against Jewish woman is free speech
Source: MSN/The Hill
The founder of a popular neo-Nazi website who was sued after he called on his readers and followers to troll storm a Jewish Realtor from Montana is arguing that his actions are protected by free speech.
Andrew Anglin, founder of the Daily Stormer, has asked a federal court in Montana to dismiss a lawsuit that Tanya Gersh filed against him last spring. In court records filed last week, Anglins attorneys said that the First Amendment is blind to viewpoint and that the Constitution protects Anglins right to express his views about Gersh, no matter how many people find those views intolerable.
If a local business were polluting the environment, any editor could rally his readers to write to that business in protest, his legal team, led by First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza, wrote in court briefs asking for the dismissal of the lawsuit. If a local business were discriminating against black customers, the NAACP can exhort its members to send correspondence to it. And, conversely, the KKK can ask its members to send letters of protest to an establishment that treats all races equally.
Gersh, of Whitefish, Mont., sued Anglin in April in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The complaint details many of the more than 700 anti-Semitic and hateful messages, including death threats, to Gersh, her family, friends and colleagues.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/neo-nazi-argues-that-%E2%80%98troll-storm%E2%80%99-against-jewish-woman-is-free-speech/ar-BBG9RRb
You know what this will lead to? Racial and sexual harassment are also free speech, which the government cannot regulate or restrict. If you comment that woman has a nice a*$, locker room talk as our President would call it, then you are just expressing your opinion. Likewise, if you state a racial stereotype, well that is also protected by the first amendment.
DangerousUrNot
(431 posts)I noticed it about 2 years ago. People like Dave Rubin, the alt-right and the big movement against SJWs all want to hide under free speech. Of course you shouldnt be locked away for saying something insensitive but it doesnt make it ok. Trump started this unapologetic, non pc bullshit rhetoric. They take it too far and except people not to get emotional when being called out their name.
forgotmylogin
(7,539 posts)responsibility for the consequences of your speech.
You have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. If that causes death and injury, prosecuting you for the results in no way has inhibited your "free speech".
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)when we think of the First to the federal government. And states have their own versions.
Private industry is a different matter. They can set their own rules, but when an institution is as large as Facebook, say, the issue isn't simple. As wife of a Jew, I'd let people say what they want as long as they are not part of large effort to influence whole peoples.
For the latter, we really need "no yelling fire in a crowded nation" laws to limit the evil, deceptive manipulation of mass media for political purposes.
C Moon
(12,225 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)it is one thing to insult someone, another to threaten to KILL them.
Juliusseizure
(562 posts)There are limits to free speech. That's why Anglin fleed to Africa. His attorneys are hoping for a Neo Nazi Judge.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Midnight Writer
(21,819 posts)IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,078 posts)... eom.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,396 posts)If you don't take it seriously, they drive a car at demonstrators and kill them, and then say "oh, that guy wasn't representative of us".
ProfessorGAC
(65,297 posts)The government isn't suing him. He's protected from the GOVERNMENT putting limits on speech.
He's being sued by a private citizen who is the aggrieved party!
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)Between free speech and harassment. One is protected. One isn't. I can call you bad names. I can insult you, your family, your ethnic group, whatever. What I can't do, is exhort hundreds of others to initiate a campaign of harassment that includes death threats. Death threats, threats of violence, stalking--not protected. 700 messages that include death threats and harassment of a person's family and associates is not free speech.
This is not a fine distinction. It's pretty binary.
melm00se
(4,997 posts)on the Brandenburg test which has 3 distinct elements:
1) intent
2) imminence
3) likelihood
Ruling is here
In Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court (in a unanimous decision) reaffirmed that there is no hate speech exception to the 1st Amendment.
As to the claim that this is a civil lawsuit between two private parties:
Since the 1960's the Supreme Court has allowed and expanded that 1st Amendment can be raised as a defense in civil lawsuits.
elmac
(4,642 posts)I noticed a large swastika scratched in the sidewalk. Quiet midwest farming community. Hate is everywhere and growing under fascism.
IronLionZion
(45,583 posts)So sure, they have the first amendment, but they can also be prosecuted under terrorism laws. These hate groups are inciting violence. Our current president has incited violence at his rallies.
Hate speech is ALWAYS a political agenda for those who desperately want to deny white terrorism.
And for a very interesting precedent. A liberal Democratic president has already killed a US citizen for terror speech. Not for terrorist acts, just for speech that encouraged others to commit terrorist acts of violence.
haele
(12,686 posts)Assault is a crime. Libel is a crime (even though slander can be iffy)
Doesn't matter if a threat or followed through on or not.
Even if it's just to intimidate, if I publically announce you cheated me and that you cheat everyone you sell to, that can be taken as evidence should you want to take me to court for false public statements that were made in an attempt to harm your business.
If I announce I'm going to beat you within an inch of your life because I don't like the way you looked at me, you can apply for a restraining order against me and take me to court.
If I incite my friends to harass you extra-judicially, I'm still responsible for my words, and responsible for any incitement to violence against you that was made by my friends and followers.
Of course I can defend myself and say I really mean it because I'm just a goofball hothead, but still...my assault against you is admissible in a court of law.
So, yes. Words matter.
Haele