SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to The New York Times, Andrew Anglin, whereabouts unknown, could be on the hook for a bit of cash.
The publisher of a neo-Nazi website should pay more than $14 million in damages for encouraging "an online anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation campaign" against a woman in 2016, a federal magistrate judge in Montana recommended on Monday.
In his opinion, the judge, Jeremiah Lynch, also recommended that the publisher, Andrew Anglin, be made to remove all blog posts from the website, The Daily Stormer, that encouraged readers to contact the woman, Tanya Gersh, and her family.
Within months of Mr. Anglin's call for a "troll storm" against them, Ms. Gersh and her family had received more than 700 vulgar and hateful messages, many referring to the Holocaust. They temporarily fled their home.
Mr. Anglin did not appear in court, and his location is unknown. He did not respond to an email on Monday requesting comment on the lawsuit. And it was not clear how much money if any could ever be collected from him.
Nice that Andrew has gone back to where he's from, allegedly Thailand.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday July 16 2019, @11:22PM (1 child)
Your Civics lesson for the day:
Criticizing the President IS Free Speech [reason.com]
Inciting a crime IS NOT Free Speech [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by saturnalia0 on Wednesday July 17 2019, @07:24PM
Should it be illegal to "incite to riot"? Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: "Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!" and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. "Inciting to riot," therefore, is a pure exercise of a man's right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime.
On the other hand, it is obvious that if Green happened to be involved in a plan or conspiracy with others to commit various crimes, and that then Green told them to proceed, he would then be just as implicated in the crimes as are the others — more so, if he were the mastermind who headed the criminal gang. This is a seemingly subtle distinction which in practice is clearcut — there is a world of difference between the head of a criminal gang and a soap-box orator during a riot; the former is not, properly to be charged simply with "incitement."
https://mises.org/library/right-self-defense [mises.org]