• 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

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,034
Reaction score
38,582
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
 
This will be bad for the Left wing mob.
 
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?
 
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.
 

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:
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:
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.
 
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??
 
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.
 
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
 
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).
 
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.
 
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” ?
 
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.
 
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...
 
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:
 
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????
 
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.
 
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
 
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!
 
Back
Top Bottom