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

[JasperL]

I agree their speech is hateful and offends me greatly.
Additionally, as a collector of surplus military arms, I refuse to bring into my home anything with the Nazi swastika on it.

...but i also do not believe in censorship.
It helps normal people see these whackos for who they really are.
There should be no fine lines.
They should be able to come right out and say what they want to.
It takes guessing out of the equation.
You know right off who they are and what is in their heart from the get go.

I agree that they should be allowed to spew their vile, and if it ended there - on Daily Stormer's website, OK. But these vermin went way beyond that by literally trying to drive the woman to suicide - they told the family this over and over and over, and it worked to a large extent. And they crossed all lines when the messages credibly threatened violence - the gun shot messages. There's no way to take those except as a threat of bodily harm or death.

But this does leave me confused.
I have also been called a racist and a Nazi one here dozens of times for merely disagreeing with someone.
I have also had so many race cards thrown at me, I have a sea chest full.

OK, that might be true (I don't know....), but as you say that's all protected speech.

 

[JasperL]

No, it does not. But what I am asking NeverTrumpGOP to answer is this: What is his defense of the Constitution and the First Amendment of its Bill of Rights? In our oh-so modern and enlightened, why should we even turn to this two-century old document as the law of the land? Again, Donald Trump was elected via the Constitution. Neo-Nazis are able to march down city streets protected by the Bill of Rights. If it was in someone's power to abolish the Constitution, and it was in NeverTrumpGOP's power to convince them not to do so, what would be his argument against doing so?

I can only speak for myself, but I believe in the rights protected by the Constitution, which all have lines drawn around them such that some e.g. speech isn't protected, and shouldn't be, and we might disagree on the lines.

But in general it's a good thing that that worthless scum and general POS Richard Spencer, and Daily Stormer's Anglin can say what they want, because the same 1A allows me to say what I want, which is to call scum like that scum. The same 1A also allows me to call Pres. Trump a disgrace, which is true IMO, without fear of the government bashing in my doors, and the same was true of people who despised Obama and said so. We can't want just OUR speech protected.

Same thing with guns, right against unlawful searches, etc.

 

[PleasantValley]

I agree that they should be allowed to spew their vile, and if it ended there - on Daily Stormer's website, OK. But these vermin went way beyond that by literally trying to drive the woman to suicide - they told the family this over and over and over, and it worked to a large extent. And they crossed all lines when the messages credibly threatened violence - the gun shot messages. There's no way to take those except as a threat of bodily harm or death.



OK, that might be true (I don't know....), but as you say that's all protected speech.

First, let me say i am in full agreement with you. No exceptions.
Having been the target of phone harassment and stalking, I could not agree more.
Doing that kind of thing should earn them being tied down to a chair, 6 feet from the speakers at a head-banger concert for its duration.
In other words, DEAFNESS or high-level tinnitus should be the penalty.

I think we agree it is OK to stand up on the street corner or internet and cuss and fuss about almost anything or anyone as long as no action is taken by the person doing the fussing and cussing.
They have no control over other lunatics. That is on them.

This is why we have so many goofy websites.
i heard of one the other day about adults that love to wear diapers and pretend to be babies.

but then some might find it strange to get sexually excited about hamsters covered in chocolate syrup like i do.
I found they get mad if you use hot fudge.

 

[MSgt]

Yeah, whatever...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

This was your defense for your fear of "the left?"

The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), was a radical left-wing militant organization active in the late 1960s and 1970s.... Their political goal, stated in print after 1974, was to create a revolutionary party to overthrow U.S. imperialism.

That was a ten year period, forty years ago, and it subsided to nothing as soon as the Vietnam War drew to a close. That was about the historical context. You may as well brought up the Black Panthers.

And ANTIFA? This rabble of an organization, despite it's current theme of squaring up with far-right organizations and their pundits, originates out of an ant-capitalist, anti-fascist, and pro- communist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. It too was purely political and they were hardly the household name before Trump legitimized the alt-right in the public's eye. These leftist groups have never really mattered. At most they were annoyances and easily handled. You may as well have presented the Anarchists of the late nineteenth century to validate your consistent shielding of alt-Right groups, which in the year 2018, generate members who send bombs to opposition politicians & celebrities and perform hate-crime in black churches and synagogues.

It was the alt-Right that cheered at Trump rallies and saw one of their own appointed as Chief Strategists to the Trump Administration. But your seething hatred for "the left" has you so jaded and so enthusiastic to be nasty that you actually defend what Germany managed to fully realize. And from this attitude you declare yourself a constitutionalist?! I don't know if this general attitude, which is found more and more among average conservatives, comes from a genuine perversion or designed obtuseness. Hanging blacks from trees and lamp posts isn't about our Constitutional. Glorifying NAZI behavior, (through ignoring it or down-right defending it) which involves the oppression of all people and the genocide of Jews, is not what our country is supposed to be. But you are so caught up in your hatred and needs to portray the world in terms of a perverted sense of "the left" and a supposed righteous Right, that you actually think these alt-right clowns are on your side.

You see, ANTIFA wasn't at Sanders or Clinton rallies showing off their communist motivations and cheering for candidates. There's a video of an ANTIFA member actually beating up a Bernie Sander's supporter later because he was waving the American flag. "The Left" hasn't embraced ANTIFA at all and until they do more than just be assholes, they will continue to get little attention from most. But the alt-Right? They will wave the American flag right next to the Third Reich's flag and scream about liberty and freedom. I don't know why so many conservatives still bother trying to separate them as the alt-Right, rather than just acknowledging that steadily this is becoming the new Right.

You really should get a summary of conservative behavior in 1920s/30s Germany.

 

[JANFU]

OK..so now free speech is only speech everyone currently agrees with.
So rules the judge.
This does not make it free speech.

I am waiting for those that gave this a LIKE are jumping for joy when Republican rallies are deemed hate speech because they cuss Democrats.

The precedent has already now been set.

Is freedom of religion next?

I think people liked the post due to the extra links I provided, there were sub links in the article. Took the time to open, and include them.
More often than not one does not have those sub links to include.

 

[JMaximus]

Oh Noze. Whatever will our resident It's-freedom-of-speech guys (nazis) say about this???

You actually equate freedom of speech with nazism?

The **** is wrong with you?

 

[TheParser]

Will ANTIFA ever be prosecuted for white hate?

From what I have seen on TV, most ANTIFA members are young Caucasian males.

I feel soooooooooooooooooo sorry for them.

As they get older and have more real life experiences, they are going to sooooooooooooo regret their youthful stupidities.

 

[OldFatGuy]

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

I must disagree with the judge. Let the punk say whatever he wants. Then quietly lure him someplace secluded, cap him. All over except getting rid of the body, some rubber gloves, plain old lye, an ax and a wood chipper. Cat food for stray cats. Problem solved.

 

[Harshaw]

I did.

From the article, for example - para 3-5



Seemed like a decent summary of the ruling. Hence my question - what's the problem?

Then you didn't understand my posts, because if you did, you'd understand what "the problem" is already, and it's not that.

I see no reason to repeat them just for you.

 

[rocket88]

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

How could they have died in the holocaust when it didn't happen?

 

[Tom Horn]

It doesn't matter if it is, because hate speech isn't illegal.

It’s only illegal if the right is accused of doing so.

 

[cabse5]

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.

So I was right and you just verified it. Hate crimes is soft retribution and those considered 'in power', even though they are targets of harassment and hatred, will never be satisfied via hate crimes prosecution of their oppressor. Hate crimes is a political charge and should be eliminated from the law books.

Hate crimes legislation is just another example of the criminalization of politics in America. We've already seen such criminalization of politics with the Mueller investigation.

 

[cabse5]

From what I have seen on TV, most ANTIFA members are young Caucasian males.

I feel soooooooooooooooooo sorry for them.

As they get older and have more real life experiences, they are going to sooooooooooooo regret their youthful stupidities.

ANTIFA hates other whites for being white.:lamo

 

[JasperL]

Then you didn't understand my posts, because if you did, you'd understand what "the problem" is already, and it's not that.

I see no reason to repeat them just for you.

You're correct - I didn't understand, which is why I asked the question. :shrug:

 

[Tigerace117]

So I was right and you just verified it. Hate crimes is soft retribution and those considered 'in power', even though they are targets of harassment and hatred, will never be satisfied via hate crimes prosecution of their oppressor. Hate crimes is a political charge and should be eliminated from the law books.

Hate crimes legislation is just another example of the criminalization of politics in America. We've already seen such criminalization of politics with the Mueller investigation.

So you are doubling down on self indulgent whining about how “mean” you think it is, combined with a conspiracy theory about hate crimes legislation is secretly a minority plot to “get back at” someone.:roll:

Uh.....no, hate crimes often include overt acts of violence up to and including murder. Laws against them are not “soft retribution”; it is an acknowledgment of the fact that many on the far right have a habit of attacking and or killing people on the basis of race/ethnicity/etc.

Yeah, I bet you think it’s criminal people are looking into your Dear Leader and his scumbag associates :roll:

 

[NeverTrump]

You actually equate freedom of speech with nazism?

The **** is wrong with you?

When people defend nazis freedom of speech but tell others to shut up. Hell yeah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NeverTrump]

If I may, NeverTrumpGOP, what parts of our Dinosaur Constitution do you stand for if not the First Amendment? In our modern day life with computers, internet, jet planes and semi-automatic rifles, what part of it can truly be justified? After all, it was by our Constitution that Donald Trump was elected. What is your argument against someone wanting to chuck out the whole lot and starting over from scratch? Maybe craft a new constitution every decade like Venezuela does (or did)?

This is a poor attempt at trolling b/c you are exposing yourself. That you know nothing about the constitution and how laws have been created that regulate all those things. Well, the internet is a bit more tricky and that's what I'm talking about. I do not think this judge or many of the politicians in American society know much about the internet (look at the Facebook testimony) or how harmful trolling can be. I believe I answered this question already. I'm not calling to chuck out the constitution, I'm calling for more upgraded laws on internet trolling and it looks like this woman will win her civil case. Cyber-bullying and online harassment is simply not legal.

 

[Felis Leo]

This is a poor attempt at trolling b/c you are exposing yourself. That you know nothing about the constitution and how laws have been created that regulate all those things. Well, the internet is a bit more tricky and that's what I'm talking about. I do not think this judge or many of the politicians in American society know much about the internet (look at the Facebook testimony) or how harmful trolling can be.

First, are you saying that if I had not "exposed myself," it would be a good attempt at trolling? What am I exposing myself as, if I may?

Second, as a consumer bankruptcy attorney, I have a passing familiarity with the Constitution.

Third, and most importantly, I am asking for you to explain your views, NeverTrumpGOP. I am asking you what you believe is defensible about our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Like many of those on the far left, you seem to to see them and the rights that are protected by them as obstacles to be overcome rather than things to be defended or which you can turn to for defense; they seem to view the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as simply a legal tool to protect those in power. What about you? If I am mistaken in my presumption, I will gladly retract my statement.

I believe I answered this question already. I'm not calling to chuck out the constitution, I'm calling for more upgraded laws on internet trolling and it looks like this woman will win her civil case. Cyber-bullying and online harassment is simply not legal.

As far as I can see, "trolling" while harmful, can and should remain uncriminalized. The reason it should be is because practically any opinion made on the internet can be considered deeply offensive and made to garner a negative reaction from someone. However, exposing personal information through doxxing, spreading false defamatory information, making threats, meanwhile, is not legal. And it was never legal before the internet. I do not see why a brand new set of restrictive laws further restricting communication and overseen by government is the correct route forward.

 

[NeverTrump]

As far as I can see, "trolling" while harmful, can and should remain uncriminalized. The reason it should be is because practically any opinion made on the internet can be considered deeply offensive and made to garner a negative reaction from someone. However, exposing personal information through doxxing, spreading false defamatory information, making threats, meanwhile, is not legal. And it was never legal before the internet. I do not see why a brand new set of restrictive laws further restricting communication and overseen by government is the correct route forward.

You write a lot for saying so few things. So let me just respond to this which made the most sense to me. I don't know if the case in question will result in new laws. Maybe in the area in which it happened, but I believe that the woman in this case just wants it acknowledged that the Daily F***Up and their followers attacked her, spread false information about her, and made threats which she reasonably thought would cause her harm.

So she is suing for emotional damages and invasion of privacy which included:

pictures of the family superimposed on a Nazi-era concentration camp

she has a case for both.

 

[Mr Person]

FROM OP LINK

Mr. Anglin then began writing and publishing his own articles calling for “a troll storm” against Ms. Gersh. “Tell them you are sickened by their Jew agenda to attack and harm the mother of someone whom they disagree with,” he wrote, according to the suit. In the months that followed, the site published over 30 related posts — and the phone numbers, email addresses and social media profiles of Ms. Gersh, her husband and 12-year-old son, as well as friends and colleagues, the suit states. A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know. By the spring of 2017, the family had received more than 700 vulgar and hateful messages, including death threats, many referencing the Holocaust. Some phone messages consisted solely of the sound of gunshots.

Etc. "Free speech" is not absolute and does not cover this sort of thing. Similarly, it doesn't protect you if you make a threat against the President. Or the well-known example of shouting "fire" in a theatre, just to troll the audience.

Contrary to the dishonest presentation of some, she is not suing them for being Nazis or for merely saying words. She's suing over a coordinated campaign of harassment under a state statute that creates that as a cause of action.

If someone seriously thinks this is what the first amendment is meant to protect, they know far less than they pretend about our history and constitution. But hey, every time something like this comes up a bunch of people have to group-signal an appearance of unflinching love of "the constitution." Modern day Calvanists....

 

[apdst]

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.

Irrelevant. The law of the land specifically states that everyone will be equally protected by the law.

 

[JMaximus]

When people defend nazis freedom of speech but tell others to shut up. Hell yeah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Telling someone else to shut up is an exercise of free speech.

 

[Hatuey]

What “white culture” ?

He means meat loaf and museum paintings. That's whats being threatened here.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Hatuey]

You condone them calling black LEO's the n-word?

... you condone calling regular black people 'the n-word'.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[apdst]

... you condone calling regular black people 'the n-word'.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

White folks too, if they deserve the label.