Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday December 08 2017, @11:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the Mein-cyberbullying-Kampf dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Friday December 08 2017, @01:52PM (14 children)

    by MrGuy (1007) on Friday December 08 2017, @01:52PM (#607180)

    The idea of XXX might seem abhorrent, but maybe one case shows that it can be justified?

    This is how liberties die.

    There's no such thing as a "just this one case!" exception to a rule. Not in a common-law system where legal precedent has the effective force of law. Once you establish the precedent that rights don't apply to people you find abhorrent, then the question shifts from "do you have this right?" to "how far can we shift the definition of 'abhorrant' over time to cover more and more conduct?"

    There are only very, very narrow exceptions to free speech in the US, and this is (in my opinion) a generally good thing. The right to express unpopular views is central to democracy. There are some well-established exceptions, but they are narrow, and they don't cover the conduct at issue here.

    Let's be clear - people who would like to limit your constitutional rights love cases like this, because the expression above is HOW they take those rights away. The "I believe in this right, but in THIS case...." argument sounds persuasive. But it's playing on your emotions. It's counting on your short-term outrage to blind you to the long game - that when you consent eroding rights in SOME cases, then you've established the precedent that those rights can be eroded in others.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=4, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @01:59PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @01:59PM (#607181)

    Put more simply, whatever views you hold someone else can view as abhorrent. Do they now have the right to remove 'you're' rights?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @03:34PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @03:34PM (#607220)

      >the right to remove 'you're' rights?

      I know it's old school, but we do have the rights to complain about "your" grammar.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @10:03AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @10:03AM (#607954)

        I will take grammar nazis over neo-nazi cyber-bullies any day of the week, or month, or year, or century. Yo'oar welcome! (And why cannot neo-nazis spell? Even in German, they cannot spell. Is it the lack of education? Or is it the inherent lack of mental ability that defines the racialist? Or, perhaps, the liberal left invented spelling just to trip up the true leederhosen of their Raisen? I feel this question, quite deeply and in my urine, needs more study.)

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by tonyPick on Friday December 08 2017, @02:42PM (7 children)

    by tonyPick (1237) on Friday December 08 2017, @02:42PM (#607192) Homepage Journal

    There are only very, very narrow exceptions to free speech in the US, and this is (in my opinion) a generally good thing. The right to express unpopular views is central to democracy. There are some well-established exceptions, but they are narrow, and they don't cover the conduct at issue here.

    Given that the exceptions include threats [lawyers.com], and that's quite clearly what he's being accused of here then they cover exactly the issue in this case.

    In fact, to quote (noted first amendment advicate/lawyer) Ken White from Popehat [popehat.com] on this issue:

    If I posted "if you spam me again, I will post your children's school address and their pictures to my violent and demented followers," people would understand it as a threat, even though I am not suggesting I will commit violence myself.

    Which pretty much covers exactly the issues in this case. Interestingly White's fellow Popehat blogger Marc Randazza [popehat.com] is representing Anglin in this suit. Personally I think that this is so clearly Anglin attempting to threaten that it's not a particularly interesting case, but you never know, the defence might come up with something surprising...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @03:47PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @03:47PM (#607229)

      If I posted "if you spam me again, I will post your children's school address and their pictures to my violent and demented followers," people would understand it as a threat, even though I am not suggesting I will commit violence myself.

      Gee, maybe it'd be a good idea not to spam that person again.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:38PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:38PM (#607286)

        I don't condone spamming, but it sure seems like you condone violence against innocent children.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:50PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:50PM (#607294)

          Consider the bees. I may enjoy poking at their nest with a stick, but the bees don't.

          It seems extremely short-sighted to accuse someone of "condoning violence against innocent children" over my comment rather than taking into account that perhaps the person exploding in rage, while not an exemplary, shouldn't be sent any more spam by the one subsequently threatened.

          Your comment is a sad example of the sort of "you don't agree with me so you must be a NAZI" crippled thinking that is so common nowadays.

          • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @06:01PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @06:01PM (#607303)

            No, you're comment was worthless. Did she spam him again? Was he ever actually spammed? The story isn't about spam, it is about a lawsuit over threats of violence. It is sad that your brain apparently cares more about spouting off some truly pointless "advice".

            Sad that you can not see your own ideological affiliations, the only point to your shitty advice was to water down the point about an actual threat of violence. "Grow up, its just locker room talk" type of bullshit.

            The only case where your point would have had some validity would be if she actually spammed him after his threat. If you can't fathom this then you are either A) stupid or B) actually a neo nazi who is too much of a coward to own up to it. Ok ok, C) mentally unstable and not simply stupid.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @06:09PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @06:09PM (#607310)

              The old adage about you having two ears and only one mouth still applies even though you have two eyes and ten fingers.

              Adults historically didn't get bent out of shape over an aside.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:08PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:08PM (#607427)

                If that makes you feel better, we all have our psychological crutches.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:56AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:56AM (#607602)

              you are either A) stupid or B) actually a neo nazi who is too much of a coward to own up to it.

              Actually, he's just a troll. And not a very good one at that.

              Here's your dinner [pelicanparts.com] troll [soylentnews.org]. It's all you get.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday December 08 2017, @03:04PM (1 child)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday December 08 2017, @03:04PM (#607201) Journal

    And straw men are how people use false argumentation to advance agendas which shouldn't exist.

    As in, I have not heard anyone suggest that filing a lawsuit against a website owner in and of itself as a threat against free speech. Or that free speech is a magic ticket protecting one from claims of harassment. The idea of a suit in this story isn't "abhorrent" to me, the way it would where lawsuits are used in SLAPP cases.

    I agree with you that Y is the exception to X can be a justification for the death of liberty. It just isn't here, because to me the conditions set in the premise do not obtain. YMMV.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 08 2017, @06:00PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday December 08 2017, @06:00PM (#607302) Journal

      As in, I have not heard anyone suggest that filing a lawsuit against a website owner in and of itself as a threat against free speech. Or that free speech is a magic ticket protecting one from claims of harassment

      Are we reading the same thread?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @04:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @04:18PM (#607249)

    If this was a case of suing for the opinions discussed, that would be an issue.

    As is, it seems to be an issue of suing for threatening, which is not a form of protected speech.