• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘You should have died in the Holocaust’: Neo-Nazi harassment is not free speech, judge rules

JANFU

Not quite there yet, but getting close
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
36,659
Reaction score
13,098
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ies-2_neonazi-speech-255pm:homepage/story-ans

The Montana mother found herself in Anglin’s crosshairs in late 2016, after Richard Spencer, a household name in the alt-right movement, gained notoriety when a video of him shouting “Hail Trump!” at a conference of nearly 300 white nationalists — and the Nazi salutes it elicited — went viral.

Spencer’s mother, Sherry Spencer, owned a ski home in the otherwise idyllic town of Whitefish, Mont. After facing local protests related to her son’s views, she reached out to Gersh, who in 2016 worked as a real estate agent, about selling the property.
Free speech? The Judge say no.
Opinions are

Court documents
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/documents/whitefish_complaint_finalstamped.pdf

Judges ruling
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/documents/order_on_motion_to_dismiss.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/us/daily-stormer-anti-semitic-lawsuit.html

The suit contends that Ms. Gersh counseled Ms. Spencer to sell the building and repudiate her son’s views. And initially, Ms. Spencer agreed, it says, even asking Ms. Gersh to represent her in such a sale.

Then Ms. Spencer reversed course, and published a blog post on Medium, charging that Ms. Gersh had tried to threaten and extort her to sell the building and break with her son. Mr. Anglin then began writing and publishing his own articles calling for “a troll storm” against Ms. Gersh.
 

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,555
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This will be bad for the Left wing mob.
 

JANFU

Not quite there yet, but getting close
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
36,659
Reaction score
13,098
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh Noze. Whatever will our resident It's-freedom-of-speech guys (nazis) say about this???

Is it not pure hate speech? Directly others to harass?
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is it not pure hate speech? Directly others to harass?

Hate speech laws need to go away because they are purely political. These laws are soft retribution. You have to realize hate speech laws are only enforced when specific groups are harassed and thought bad of.

No one will ever bring hate speech prosecution when a, for example, white person or cop is being harassed or denigrated.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

That simply is not what the judge ruled.

The judge ruled on a procedural issue, and denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss the case. The motion was predicated on the idea that free speech is a defense to tort. The judge ruled in this case it is not and that the case may proceed to discovery and (presumably) to trial. This was done on the basis not of the content of the speech -- the Nazi language -- but on the nature of the speech, mostly whether it was speech of public concern or private speech.

The judge did not rule that said speech is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, the judge acknowledged that it is. But that wasn't the question.

This is a very irresponsible article, and an especially irresponsible headline.
 
Last edited:

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This is the kind of harassment that the Left wing mobs specialize in.

The left wing mob will have to harass and denigrate certain politically correct groups in order for hate speech laws to be in effect. Usually, the targets of most left wing mobs do not fit into the categories of groups that apply to hate speech legislation.

Those hate speech prosecutable groups can be further subdivided into political persuasion. For example, harassers of Kanye West will never be charged with hate crimes but harassers of Stacy Abrams will, doubly. Abrams is a progressive and an woman.

Get rid of hate crimes legislation. It is politically motivated.
 
Last edited:

JANFU

Not quite there yet, but getting close
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
36,659
Reaction score
13,098
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That simply is not what the judge ruled.

The judge ruled on a procedural issue, and denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss the case. The motion was predicated on the idea that free speech is a defense to tort. The judge ruled in this case it is not and that the case may proceed to discovery and (presumably) to trial. This was done on the basis not of the content of the speech -- the Nazi language -- but on the nature of the speech, mostly whether it was speech of public concern or private speech.

The judge did not rule that said speech is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, the judge acknowledged that it is. But that wasn't the question.

This is a very irresponsible article, and an especially irresponsible headline.
Anglins defense was 1A?? Yes No??
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ies-2_neonazi-speech-255pm:homepage/story-ans

In his court filings, Anglin argued that the First Amendment protects his posts on the Daily Stormer and that he could not be held responsible for his readers’ actions.

Chief Judge Dana L. Christensen, of the U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., disagreed.
 

JANFU

Not quite there yet, but getting close
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
36,659
Reaction score
13,098
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hate speech laws need to go away because they are purely political. These laws are soft retribution. You have to realize hate speech laws are only enforced when specific groups are harassed and thought bad of.

No one will ever bring hate speech prosecution when a, for example, white person or cop is being harassed or denigrated.

Note I used this???
Where are whites in the majority oppressed by hate speech?
Can you provide some examples??
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Note I used this???
Where are whites in the majority oppressed by hate speech?
Can you provide some examples??
College entrances. Cops are certainly oppressed. The general culture of progressives to denigrate, even hate the white culture. ANTIFA comes to mind. Will ANTIFA ever be prosecuted for white hate? No.
 

JANFU

Not quite there yet, but getting close
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
36,659
Reaction score
13,098
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Only in the context of a motion to dismiss a tort action. As in, the First Amendment doesn't protect him from being sued.

As I said, it's an irresponsible article. It might even fairly be called "fake news," it's that bad.

Me I posted it as per the rules for MSM
Next it does add for discussion.
Last it does show how a Neo Nazi Org can cause massive disruption and fear for a families safety and as per the plaintiffs docs, state it was under 1A Rights
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Note I used this???
Where are whites in the majority oppressed by hate speech?
Can you provide some examples??

Therein lies the problem with hate speech laws: there are people who don't want the laws to be applied equally, which is unconstitutional (equal protection clause).
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Me I posted it as per the rules for MSM
Next it does add for discussion.
Last it does show how a Neo Nazi Org can cause massive disruption and fear for a families safety and as per the plaintiffs docs, state it was under 1A Rights

I didn't say you did anything wrong by posting it. I said it's a terrible article which makes claims that simply didn't happen.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,720
Reaction score
6,276
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
College entrances. Cops are certainly oppressed. The general culture of progressives to denigrate, even hate the white culture. ANTIFA comes to mind. Will ANTIFA ever be prosecuted for white hate? No.

What “white culture” ?
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Therein lies the problem with hate speech laws: there are people who don't want the laws to be applied equally, which is unconstitutional (equal protection clause).

Hate speech laws aren't applied equally.
 

trixare4kids

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
44,473
Reaction score
30,691
Location
S. California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Therein lies the problem with hate speech laws: there are people who don't want the laws to be applied equally, which is unconstitutional (equal protection clause).

That's something our non-American friends to the north of us probably don't understand... The equal protection clause.

This ruling sets precedence for all kinds of harassment of others.
Should ANTIFA have no First Amendment Right to harassment?

What about politicians who tell their supporters to get in the faces of their political foes?

I'm not supporting Anglin, btw.

Most of the harassment as I understand it came from an online troll storm.

I am wondering what kind of precedence this may set and who gets to decide what is an online harassment?
The left?

UM, NO...
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
125,250
Reaction score
37,652
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
College entrances. Cops are certainly oppressed. The general culture of progressives to denigrate, even hate the white culture. ANTIFA comes to mind. Will ANTIFA ever be prosecuted for white hate? No.

:lol:
 

JANFU

Not quite there yet, but getting close
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
36,659
Reaction score
13,098
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
College entrances. Cops are certainly oppressed. The general culture of progressives to denigrate, even hate the white culture. ANTIFA comes to mind. Will ANTIFA ever be prosecuted for white hate? No.

LEO's oppressed - really- I challenge you to post a Thread, with supporting evidence, links and such to support your point.
Game on????
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That's something our non-American friends to the north of us probably don't understand... The equal protection clause.

This ruling sets precedence for all kinds of harassment of others.
Should ANTIFA have no First Amendment Right to harassment?

What about politicians who tell their supporters to get in the faces of their political foes?

I'm not supporting Anglin, btw.

Most of the harassment as I understand it came from an online troll storm.
I am wondering what kind of precedence this may set and who gets to decide what is an online harassment?

Despite their air a superiority, they consistantly fail to understand how our Constitution works.

Hell, most American commumists suffer the same shortcoming.
 

JANFU

Not quite there yet, but getting close
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
36,659
Reaction score
13,098
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I didn't say you did anything wrong by posting it. I said it's a terrible article which makes claims that simply didn't happen.

I realize that, I was just explaining my POV
For those that read thru the thread from the beginning
 

trixare4kids

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
44,473
Reaction score
30,691
Location
S. California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
That simply is not what the judge ruled.

The judge ruled on a procedural issue, and denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss the case. The motion was predicated on the idea that free speech is a defense to tort. The judge ruled in this case it is not and that the case may proceed to discovery and (presumably) to trial. This was done on the basis not of the content of the speech -- the Nazi language -- but on the nature of the speech, mostly whether it was speech of public concern or private speech.

The judge did not rule that said speech is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, the judge acknowledged that it is. But that wasn't the question.

This is a very irresponsible article, and an especially irresponsible headline.

Thank YOU!
 
Top Bottom