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: 1, Troll) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:49PM
As well as the other *real* facts discussed in this thread, like emails, existence of conflicts of interest, etc.
The thing is, ignoring the trigger can make the problems worse. If it turns out that Gersh was preying on the Spencer parents (unpunished, I might add) precisely because their son was a white nationalist, that will legitimize the whole bout of thuggery in the eyes of the people who undertook it. While Anglin and his associates may be unable to exploit the trial competently, eventually someone will come around who can thrive on these lawsuits and whatnot, turning bad publicity into gold. At a glance, Anglin has raised almost $160,000 [wesearchr.com] for his legal defense fund. He's getting support from somewhere.
Going back to the days of the Weimar Republic, the Nazis routinely ran afoul of these sorts of laws. I understand that members of the organization collected dozens of lawsuits and criminal trials for hate speech, rioting, treason, slander/libel, etc. There were even Nazi publishers filling the same niches (and doing the same tricks) as the Daily Stormer today with repeated jail sentences and seizure of equipment and assets. Rather than encourage them to obey the law, these trials had the perverse outcome generating a considerable amount of sympathy, publicity, and funding. For the key example, Hitler was at the time of the "Beer Hall Putsch" (a poorly organized attempted coup of the Bavarian state government) a local problem. During his trial for treason, he achieved national fame.
It's nice that you agree that no one should be treated this way. But from the other point of view it's a straightforward case of tit-for-tat in a scary world where scary Jews make all the rules. Gersh allegedly goes after family so they go after her family because they don't believe playing by the rules would work. I don't buy that punishing the current harassment while coyly ignoring the trigger will undermine support for these beliefs or discourage lawbreaking. They have a different narrative going.