• 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

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

Hell, most American commumists suffer the same shortcoming.
Click to expand...

If I am to understand the premise of the thread correctly, what the MT. Judge's ruling essentially is saying is that the first amendment does not prevent the Neo-Nazi from being sued.
Well, no duh... Like none of us don't already know this.

I agree with Harshaw, ... the title of the O/P's piece is very misleading.
 
"Will Antifa ever be prosecuted for white hate?"

I thought I'd seen it all.
 
apdst said:
This is the kind of harassment that the Left wing mobs specialize in.
Click to expand...

Unlike the far right white supremacists who send bombs to people they don't like or storm into synagogues and churches and MURDER people they don't like.
 
apdst said:
Despite their air a superiority, they consistantly fail to understand how our Constitution works.

Hell, most American commumists suffer the same shortcoming.
Click to expand...

It's good that we, Constitutionalists, are here to set these foreigners straight.
I laugh while suffering through their ignorance when it comes to our country... If they want to be taken seriously, why not give up their Canadian citizenship, and devote themselves to reforming their crappy neighbors right to be protected by the Constitution? :mrgreen:
 
apdst said:
This will be bad for the Left wing mob.
Click to expand...

Because they're against one of Trump's "very fine people?"

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.


Unlike Trump, and many of his base, I think it's better to stand up to White Nationalists, rather than support them. What do you think?
 
JustHanging said:
Because they're against one of Trump's "very fine people?"

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.
Click to expand...

You're a Canadian.

I rest my case.
 
trixare4kids said:
If they want to be taken seriously, why not give up their Canadian citizenship,
Click to expand...

That would be the height of stupidity. Canada isn't a laughing stock of the world, the USA is a laughing stock, so giving up our Canadian citizenship would be self defeating if we wanted to be taken seriously.

President Trump Is Literally the Laughingstock of the World
Donald Trump draws mocking laughter as he boasts of America’s ‘might’ at UN
America the laughingstock
Trump Has Made America Into A Laughingstock
The year the world laughed at the U.S.
European diplomats: Trump is a 'laughing stock'
'People here think Trump is a laughingstock'
Trump is making America the laughingstock of the world



Our population isn't going to make a huge mistake and elect a moron like Trump. Canada has a bright future. :)
 
trixare4kids said:
You're a Canadian.

I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Exactly, my country isn't the laughing stock of the world. And we aren't divided by hatred, fear and racism.

Don't you find living in a country where the POTUS runs a campaign based on energizing cowardly racists to be unpleasant?



EDIT: BTW, you didn't answer my question: Do you think "This will be bad for the Left wing mob" because they are standing up to one of Trump's base?

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.

Those White Supremacists sure love them some Trump, don't they

Hail Trump: White nationalists mark Trump win with Nazi salute

One group loved Trump’s remarks about Charlottesville: White supremacists


and Trump sure seems to like making them happy

Trump’s Midterm Closing Argument: Pure Racial Fear


So judging by Trump's actions, I'm pretty sure Trump would be on Spencer's side, especially as Spencer is obviously part of Trump's base.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please cite your evidence of a state government which allowed a terrorist group to murder white people or police officers for voting, not acting subservient enough, or supposedly looking at a woman.

Until then, your cry of "hate crimes are bad because I feel picked on" lacks any validity.
 
apdst said:
You didn't even watch the video?
Click to expand...

Was I?
Link to the MSM story.
I have no wish to read into what you are thinking.
All you did, which is the norm, post a link, with nothing else, no comments, nothing but a link
 
JANFU said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ies-2_neonazi-speech-255pm:homepage/story-ans


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
Click to expand...

After reading this: Gersh v Anglin I agree with the judge. This wasn't free speech. Anglin purposely called for the harassment of Gersh. Including the threats. That is not protected speech.
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read the decision and I'm not sure what you find irresponsible. The judge said that offensive speech, neo-Nazi rhetoric, is OK, but the headline and the article draw a line between that and the harassment, which isn't or at least might not be.

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

Where's the problem?
 
trixare4kids said:
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...
Click to expand...

Who gets to decide are the courts. A phone call with nothing but gun shots means what? How about pictures of the family superimposed on a Nazi-era concentration camp?
 
JANFU said:
Note I used this???
Where are whites in the majority oppressed by hate speech?
Can you provide some examples??
Click to expand...

Try this on for size:



 
trixare4kids said:
If I am to understand the premise of the thread correctly, what the MT. Judge's ruling essentially is saying is that the first amendment does not prevent the Neo-Nazi from being sued.
Well, no duh... Like none of us don't already know this.

I agree with Harshaw, ... the title of the O/P's piece is very misleading.
Click to expand...

How's that? If the judge found that the speech was protected by the 1A, he/she would have granted the motion to dismiss (don't know if the first name Dana is male or female). What the judge found was the harassing speech wasn't protected speech, which is part of the headline.
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear - well said.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
What “white culture” ?
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is an American Culture that has flourished and grown since our founding, but it's not a "white" culture, nor is it definable as a culture of any other racial group, because it is an amalgamation of all the races that make up our country through art, music, food, clothing, engineering, architecture, technology, language, literature, and on and on, ad infinitum.

IMHO.
 
Kal'Stang said:
After reading this: Gersh v Anglin I agree with the judge. This wasn't free speech. Anglin purposely called for the harassment of Gersh. Including the threats. That is not protected speech.
Click to expand...

Where he called for and incited harm, yes, that part is not protected. However, the judge does say about the remainder of the speech (although repugnant speech) the following:
The Court agrees that the speech does not fall into a de facto unprotected
category. And in fact Gersh does not contend that Anglin' s speech falls within one
of the few "historic and traditional categories of expression long familiar to the
bar" for which content-based restrictions on speech are clearly permitted. United
States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 717-18 (2012) (citations, alterations, and internal
quotation marks omitted). Indeed, "there is no categorical exception to the First
Amendment for harassing or offensive speech." United States v. Osinger, 753
F.3d 939, 953 (9th Cir. 2014).
Click to expand...

He went on to state even further the reasons that it is protected, but that it is not an exemption from civil tort regarding actual harm from all parts of his speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom