SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The idea of suing a website might seem abhorrent to advocates of free speech on the internet, but maybe one case shows that it can be justified?
Whitefish Woman's Lawsuit Over 'Daily Stormer' Harassment Proceeding
The Missoulian is reporting [archive] that a Whitefish woman's lawsuit against a Nazi website is going forward.
Montana Public Radio reports that Andrew Anglin, publisher of The Daily Stormer, is being sued by an individual the website targeted because of the mother of Richard Spencer:
The Daily Stormer called for readers to harass her and her family over her dealings with the mother of white nationalist Richard Spencer.
Image of part of the complaint (PDF).
Northwestern Montana, however, has had some experience in dealing with neo-Nazis in the neighborhood.
(Score: 5, Informative) by FatPhil on Friday December 08 2017, @01:40PM (12 children)
A website isn't being taken to court, a person is being sued, for his *use* of a website to incite other people to commit imminent crimes. "Mr. Anglin posted ...", "Mr. Anglin attacked ...", "Mr. Anglin accused", "Mr. Anglin encouraged ...", ...; this is nothing to do with mere ownership of a website that was used by others.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Interesting) by FatPhil on Friday December 08 2017, @01:44PM (10 children)
"Mr. Anglin also attacked local rabbis [et al...] in his December 16, 2016 article, calling them a "vicious, evil race of hate-filled psychopaths"
Sounds like a lovely guy, from this thoroughly unbiased and balanced write-up.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Informative) by nitehawk214 on Friday December 08 2017, @03:13PM (9 children)
He either said the thing or did not. What does bias have to do with anything?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @03:59PM (3 children)
Fatphil thinks there is a conspiracy against anyone who doesn't like immigrants and feels personally attacked when a neo Nazi is accused of, well, anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @08:45PM (2 children)
Or, he knows who the AC submitter actually is!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @10:39PM (1 child)
Who could it be? (lol)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:34AM
I suspect TMB, just stirring shit. Couldn't have been the regular right with no humor, like jmorris, khallow, VLM, or frojack. Too meta for Runaway. That leaves, gweg_? Takyon? Bradley15? Hmm, just like a Swiss Misster. So I think, in the bowels of my consternation, that it was cubancigar11, mostly because of the number, and the fact that coincidences do not lie.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:00AM (3 children)
It's a traditional media ideal as is "balance". Daily Storm is a media source far from these ideals even by the skimpy standards of modern yellow journalism.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:06PM (2 children)
No, the ideal you're thinking of is "objective", as in verifiable or provable rather than mere opinion.
"Balanced" is inherently in almost every instance, and was popularized as a "standard" by propaganda outlets such as Fox "news".
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:09PM
that should have been
"Balanced" is inherently _dishonest_ in almost every instance.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:46PM
There are numerous ideals. The phrase in question was "unbiased and balanced write-up".
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:20PM
Nothing I said contradicts "He either said the thing or did not.", and therefore "He either said the thing or did not." does not contradict anything I said.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Friday December 08 2017, @03:00PM
Montana Public Radio's mistake here repeated in the summary; the article they linked at the Missoulian more correctly states "More than seven months after a Whitefish woman initially sued the publisher of a neo-Nazi website who called for a “troll storm” against her, the case is beginning to move forward." (emphasis mine)
I don't entirely agree with the summary here either. I generally support free speech but if the contents of these articles are to be believed, the website is just a long series of vile personal attacks without any actual data discussion. I'd have to actually see what they're about of course to be sure and don't have the time today.