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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:45PM (4 children)
It. Sounds. Like. A. Nazi. Was. Found. Out. So. They. Charged. Him. Less. Money. And. Donated. To. Something. Worthwhile. To. Piss. Him. Off. He. Did. Not. Appreciate. Someone. Spitting. In. His. Face. Even. If. It. Meant. He. Saved. Money. He. Threatened. Physical. Violence. Upon. Her. That. Was. The. Actual. Crime.
Are you fucking kidding me about profit motivations? Like there is some amount of hidden details that make threatening innocent kids OK? This is why conservatives/libertarians get so much shit, they try so hard to defend their ideologies they end up in bed with violent nutjobs. Then they stay there?!? WTF??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:59PM (2 children)
I'm not interested to try to further explain to you the nature of conflicts of interests, and how getting one side of the story from demonstrably-biased news articles and one party's court petition might hide some additional motives for the behavior of the participants.
For all I know, Gersh could be a spotless angel, whose lips have never let escape a lie. I just read the summary, the linked article, and the linked PDF, then found something in the PDF court filing that was stood out and wasn't mentioned in the other sources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:12PM (1 child)
In no way does some small aside matter, threats were made. What the motivation was is irrelevant, even when owed money violent threats are not OK.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:36PM
Completely 100% wrong. The actions of the perpetrator could indeed be mitigated by the victim's behavior.
An example for you: A perpetrator of assault (the crime of threatening an attack) could tell his victim "I'll shoot you!". However, if the victim of assault was also the perpetrator of a night-time home invasion, the crime of assault will most likely be completely mitigated due to the actions of the home-invading assault victim.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @05:39AM
As I note [soylentnews.org] elsewhere, yes, those hidden details can matter.
Moving on, "ending up in bed" misses the point. The ACLU often has this problem as well. It's because governments are more willing to violate laws and abuse power against targets that are unpopular, ostracized, or villified, such as violent nutjobs. That's because there is a history of such abuses eventually targeting those who aren't violent nutjobs. Better to stop such things now rather than after you're affected by them as well.