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: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday December 08 2017, @03:37PM (6 children)
A little primer here, individuals (unless they are employed by government and are acting in their official capacity) are not bound by the first amendment.
If that were the case, there would never be libel or slander lawsuits.
What's more, litigation is pretty much the favorite sport of Americans. Don't like the customer service you received? File a lawsuit!
Don't like the outcome of a business deal? File a lawsuit!
Your HOA wants you to mow your lawn 3 times a week and you want to do so 3 times a month? File a lawsuit!
A skateboarder runs into a pedestrian and causes bodily harm of *any* kind? File a lawsuit!
Threats and harassment from those with an axe to grind against you don't rise to the level of criminal [findlaw.com] harassment [mtrules.org], or does rise to that level but there's not enough evidence for an arrest/conviction? File a lawsuit!
Filing lawsuits is a practice in the US with a long and glorious tradition. There's no First Amendment issue here. Whether you agree with the plaintiff that the activities alleged [aljazeera.com] constitute activity by the defendant that requires compensation or other sanction by a jury or not, filing such a lawsuit isn't an attempt at censorship (no government involved) or a war on unpopular ideas, it's a sport -- sometimes (for the parties and *always* for the attorneys) a lucrative one.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday December 08 2017, @03:39PM
And I incorrectly used an apostrophe in the Subject: line (should be Not Censorchip, Just Americans' Favorite Sport. Lawsuit coming soon, I'm sure!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Friday December 08 2017, @05:36PM (1 child)
Keep in mind that Anglin lives in another state. Law enforcement has to be bothered to do an extradition. It could be years before Anglin sees the inside of a courtroom in Montana. And when he does, there may be several dodges he could use to keep criminal charges at bay. But we have evidence of harm to the plaintiff, Gersh arising from the reckless actions of the defendant.
Further, read your links. They are both completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Anglin didn't stalk Gersh. A reoccurring pattern of harassment would need to be shown rather than just one incident that went way out of hand. Similarly, Anglin is not an employer of Gersh. Thus, workplace rules about harassment don't apply.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday December 08 2017, @06:31PM
Please understand, I'm not suggesting that the lawsuit is inappropriate. Quite the opposite, in fact.
My adorable little rant was more to show those who think it's inappropriate for this lawsuit to go forward that people sue other people for all kinds of reasons, many (most, perhaps) which are much less (alleged) egregious behavior.
Actually, that was kind of my point. The plaintiff (apparently) has no recourse with the criminal justice system, so availed herself of the civil courts. a jury (absent an out-of-court settlement) will decide if her claims have merit. As it should be, IMHO.
The truth is that we are pretty much in agreement here. Yes, I know. It's a little disconcerting for me too. :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Empyrean on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:44AM (1 child)
Is litigation in the US a national sport or just a pastime?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:58AM
Given that the professional leagues are pretty big, I'd have to say it was a sport. Then again, one man's sport is another man's pastime, I suppose.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by arcz on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:23AM
Since when does censorship require the government?
I think you're confusing government censorship with censorship in general.
Or maybe certain groups are redefining the word "censorship" just as they have taken to redefine several other words...