Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by FatPhil on Friday December 08 2017, @01:40PM (12 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday December 08 2017, @01:40PM (#607171) Homepage
    > The idea of suing a website might seem abhorrent ...

    A website isn't being taken to court, a person is being sued, for his *use* of a website to incite other people to commit imminent crimes. "Mr. Anglin posted ...", "Mr. Anglin attacked ...", "Mr. Anglin accused", "Mr. Anglin encouraged ...", ...; this is nothing to do with mere ownership of a website that was used by others.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by FatPhil on Friday December 08 2017, @01:44PM (10 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday December 08 2017, @01:44PM (#607175) Homepage
      Anyone spot any projection?

      "Mr. Anglin also attacked local rabbis [et al...] in his December 16, 2016 article, calling them a "vicious, evil race of hate-filled psychopaths"

      Sounds like a lovely guy, from this thoroughly unbiased and balanced write-up.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by nitehawk214 on Friday December 08 2017, @03:13PM (9 children)

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday December 08 2017, @03:13PM (#607210)

        He either said the thing or did not. What does bias have to do with anything?

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
        • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @03:59PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @03:59PM (#607237)

          Fatphil thinks there is a conspiracy against anyone who doesn't like immigrants and feels personally attacked when a neo Nazi is accused of, well, anything.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @08:45PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @08:45PM (#607407)

            Or, he knows who the AC submitter actually is!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @10:39PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @10:39PM (#607474)

              Who could it be? (lol)

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:34AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:34AM (#607664)

                I suspect TMB, just stirring shit. Couldn't have been the regular right with no humor, like jmorris, khallow, VLM, or frojack. Too meta for Runaway. That leaves, gweg_? Takyon? Bradley15? Hmm, just like a Swiss Misster. So I think, in the bowels of my consternation, that it was cubancigar11, mostly because of the number, and the fact that coincidences do not lie.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:00AM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:00AM (#607672) Journal

          What does bias have to do with anything?

          It's a traditional media ideal as is "balance". Daily Storm is a media source far from these ideals even by the skimpy standards of modern yellow journalism.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:06PM (2 children)

            by Immerman (3985) on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:06PM (#607791)

            No, the ideal you're thinking of is "objective", as in verifiable or provable rather than mere opinion.

            "Balanced" is inherently in almost every instance, and was popularized as a "standard" by propaganda outlets such as Fox "news".

            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:09PM

              by Immerman (3985) on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:09PM (#607793)

              that should have been
              "Balanced" is inherently _dishonest_ in almost every instance.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:46PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:46PM (#607838) Journal

              No, the ideal

              There are numerous ideals. The phrase in question was "unbiased and balanced write-up".

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:20PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:20PM (#608059) Homepage
          You appear to be reading into my post something that I did not say.

          Nothing I said contradicts "He either said the thing or did not.", and therefore "He either said the thing or did not." does not contradict anything I said.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Friday December 08 2017, @03:00PM

      by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Friday December 08 2017, @03:00PM (#607198)

      Montana Public Radio's mistake here repeated in the summary; the article they linked at the Missoulian more correctly states "More than seven months after a Whitefish woman initially sued the publisher of a neo-Nazi website who called for a “troll storm” against her, the case is beginning to move forward." (emphasis mine)

      I don't entirely agree with the summary here either. I generally support free speech but if the contents of these articles are to be believed, the website is just a long series of vile personal attacks without any actual data discussion. I'd have to actually see what they're about of course to be sure and don't have the time today.

  • (Score: 2) by lx on Friday December 08 2017, @01:42PM (25 children)

    by lx (1915) on Friday December 08 2017, @01:42PM (#607173)

    People complaining about lack of free speech on the internet tend to be Alt-Right and Nazi affiliated these days.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday December 08 2017, @01:51PM (10 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday December 08 2017, @01:51PM (#607178) Homepage
      I don't know. If you dare to say something as terrible and world-ending as "not all rape accusers are telling the truth", or "Islam is provably, according to its own holy books, not a religion of peace", then you will be deplatformed pretty damned quickly nowadays. Say goodbye to your youtube ad money, and certainly don't expect to be found on the top page of search results for the video's keywords, as your hateful lies are unsuitable for anyone's fragile ears.

      Sargon did nothing wrong!
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Friday December 08 2017, @03:06PM (6 children)

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Friday December 08 2017, @03:06PM (#607202) Journal

        If you dare to say something as terrible and world-ending as "not all rape accusers are telling the truth", or "Islam is provably, according to its own holy books, not a religion of peace", then you will be deplatformed pretty damned quickly nowadays.

        Right. Because those wordings plant doubt by using rare/fringe cases to broadly paint over the issue to try and dilute it. Sure there are false rape accusations and blood thirsty jihad muslims lusting to murder innocent westerners. But there are many who are so afraid of these groups that they will use disinformation and character assassination to marginalize and oppress these groups.

        • (Score: 5, Touché) by nitehawk214 on Friday December 08 2017, @03:21PM (5 children)

          by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday December 08 2017, @03:21PM (#607212)

          Couldn't you say that the statement "People complaining about lack of free speech on the internet tend to be Alt-Right and Nazi affiliated these days." is using an overly broad brush and that not everyone in favor of free speech is alt-right or a nazi?

          Or did you want to skip right to character assassination to marginalize and oppress these groups?

          --
          "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
          • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday December 08 2017, @04:06PM

            by LoRdTAW (3755) on Friday December 08 2017, @04:06PM (#607244) Journal

            What?

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

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @08:08PM (#607379)

            Or did you want to skip right to character assassination to marginalize and oppress these groups?

            I would be more in favor of concentration camps, and then tribunals and summary execution, but we might try de-Nazification, like we did after WWII. The turn of phrase is that the neo-Nazis have "weaponized" free speech.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:35AM (2 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:35AM (#607590) Journal

              Just so you know, summary executions don't require camps, tribunals, or any of the other trappings of law, no matter how unjust the law might be. Summary executions are just - you know - summary. I decide that you die, I pull the trigger, and it's all over but the crying.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:39AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:39AM (#607665)

                Silly Arkansawite! Do they no longer have civic classes in your high-schools? Of course they require these things to maintain the "cover" of law. It is just like when you are fucking the livestock, and you pretend that since you "own" them, that this is part of the deal. But, you know, it does not? So, no summary animal husbandry, OK? Runaway? Please? And no sexting of such encounters, because, you know. swine do not have smartphones, so there really is no point.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday December 08 2017, @04:29PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 08 2017, @04:29PM (#607254) Homepage Journal

        don't know. If you dare to say something as terrible and world-ending as "not all rape accusers are telling the truth", or "Islam is provably, according to its own holy books, not a religion of peace", then you will be deplatformed pretty damned quickly nowadays. Say goodbye to your youtube ad money, and certainly don't expect to be found on the top page of search results for the video's keywords, as your hateful lies are unsuitable for anyone's fragile ears.

        Whether your claim about being "deplatformed" is true or not, the issue is one of liberty. Without the ability to reliably and with sufficient bandwidth, self-host, you're forced to deal with private third-parties who can censor you at their whim.

        So you can deal with it or you can work with your neighbors to get community-owned/operated last mile symmetric internet services (preferably FTTH) and force ISPs to compete for your business. Unless and until you do so, you're vulnerable to censorship by whoever owns your hosting platform.

        So the answer is clear, it's just not easy to fight the anti-competitive ISP oligopoly and their paid shills^W^W buddies over at ALEC [alec.org].

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @06:48PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @06:48PM (#607339)

        As reported to the police, it's 84% false accusation. Most of these won't go to trial; the percentage at trial is lower but I don't know that number.

        Typical motives: to cover up an affair, to avoid being in trouble with parents, relationship failure

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by t-3 on Friday December 08 2017, @08:44PM

          by t-3 (4907) on Friday December 08 2017, @08:44PM (#607406)

          Citation?

    • (Score: 2) by BK on Friday December 08 2017, @02:43PM (3 children)

      by BK (4868) on Friday December 08 2017, @02:43PM (#607193)

      Unless [gizmodo.com] they're [salon.com] not. [telegraph.co.uk] ..... [bet.com]

      I've been meaning to put one of these into the story queue for a couple of days.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by chromas on Friday December 08 2017, @03:02PM (1 child)

        by chromas (34) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08 2017, @03:02PM (#607200) Journal

        One man's opinion is another man's hatespeech. I bet there'd be a ton of articles about "misogyny" and "toxic masculinity" if the posts were "women are trash". I don't see any mentioning misandry though. Hmm. #NotAllHatespeech

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:46AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:46AM (#607666)

          I don't see any mentioning misandry though

          Do you know why? Real men take responsibility, and do not all go whining that it is their mother/girlfriend/wife/blowup-doll's fault. So I, and not just me, but every woman, every real man, every child of both genders, hate you, you disgusting MRA type! Take that sorry excuse for a penis, tuck it between your legs, and run like hell, because if we catch up you, you are everyone's bitch. And, oh, pro-tip. The quickest way for us to find you if for you to stop paying child support. Do that, please, and we will find you, and once we find you, well, White Sharia, Dude!

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:20PM (#607275)

        Unless [gizmodo.com] they're [salon.com] not. [telegraph.co.uk] ..... [bet.com]

        I've been meaning to put one of these into the story queue for a couple of days.

        That's why it's stupid to use FaceTrash.

        Better to use Wordpress to host your opinions [wordpress.com] apparently.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Friday December 08 2017, @03:00PM (9 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08 2017, @03:00PM (#607199) Journal
      It's not nice people saying nice things who will run afoul of speech bans first.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Friday December 08 2017, @03:24PM (8 children)

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday December 08 2017, @03:24PM (#607213)

        I think there is a distinction between "bad people saying bad things" and "targeted harassment against political enemies" and death threats.

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
        • (Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Friday December 08 2017, @03:58PM (6 children)

          by jmorris (4844) on Friday December 08 2017, @03:58PM (#607233)

          Yes, there is. And a hint of the actual situation is right there in the summary. This bitch was going after Richard Spencer's -MOTHER- in real life for the crime of being Richard Spencer's mother. So Anglin called in an troll strike on the bitch. Spencer and Anglin are semi-allies, sometimes working together, sometimes arguing. But Spencer had no way to defend himself against such an attack and Anglin is an Internet Troll of great repute and can call up more of his kind so he did.

          So make your call everyone and pick a side. Side A is lowlife losers who will locate and harass your mother if you say the wrong thing in the public space and Side B is a bunch of trolls who LARP as Nazis. Which one is more dangerous to the body politic? Which side seems to have the ear of those holding the levers of power? Which side can kill your domain hosting so many times it can't be easily counted, in a dozen countries?

          And a meta criticism. Why did Soylent link to wikipedia? DailyStormer [dailystormer.red] is still up, it just moves every few weeks. Click the link. Yes it is awful, he is a troll; if the content today doesn't offend you it means he hasn't done his job. But is it truly worse than some of the stuff that has had no problems keeping a domain name? Which btw, includes every site that isn't named dailystormer since no other destination on the Internet has been so banned? Not counting outright illegal ISIS snuff stuff, outright crime, etc. I'm talking being banned for being outrageous or politically incorrect. The guy is the Weekly World News of Nazi sites, is making him the most banned website in the history of the Internet shutting him up or making him an underground hero?

          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday December 08 2017, @04:37PM

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday December 08 2017, @04:37PM (#607256) Journal

            And a meta criticism. Why did Soylent link to wikipedia?

            You answered your dumb criticism in the next sentence. Notice that Wikipedia has the latest link.

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:51PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:51PM (#607295)

            Run your fingers through a blender please, a finger milkshake would at least provide some nutrition to a pack of rabid dogs instead of bringing negative value to the world.

          • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @06:50PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @06:50PM (#607340)

            You bitch, jmorris!!! NEVER, ever, again attack my mother! You cretin! You neo-nazi sympathizing and collaborating scum! Do you not think it is White Dick Spencer's mom's fault that her boy grew up to be a Hitler-wanna-be? If you could go back in time, and couldn't land on the right temporal co-ordinates to kill Hitler, but you could take out his mom, before she ever ovulated, would it be the ethical thing to do? Thirty million lives, and that is only counting the Greater Whitefish area.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:45AM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:45AM (#607596) Journal

            I think that you, jmorris, are more hated than I am by the wingnuts. But, you pretty much nailed it with that post. The other side approves of hunting down some guy's mother, because they think he's a Nazi. I, of course, don't agree with everything you say, but you simply nailed it here. Left handed wingnuts can't understand that they are very much like the Nazis that they claim to hate. Actually, it's a love-hate relationship. They hate the Nazi's goals, but they love the Nazi's methods.

            Kill the Nazis, kill the Nazi's mothers, kill the Nazi's children, kill, kill, kill. Eliminate all signs of an idea that we hate. Eradicate anyone who might sympathize with the Nazi's. And, only a left-wingnut can decide who looks like a sympathizer.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:58AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:58AM (#607951)

              I think that you, jmorris, are more hated than I am by the wingnuts.

              Do not attempt to flatter yourself, Runaway! It is unbecoming. Kind of like trying to suck your own *jmorris*.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:47AM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:47AM (#607597) Homepage Journal

            Yes, there is. And a hint of the actual situation is right there in the summary. This bitch was going after Richard Spencer's -MOTHER- in real life for the crime of being Richard Spencer's mother. So Anglin called in an troll strike on the bitch. Spencer and Anglin are semi-allies, sometimes working together, sometimes arguing. But Spencer had no way to defend himself against such an attack and Anglin is an Internet Troll of great repute and can call up more of his kind so he did.

            I'm confused. Based on the information I've seen (if you have additional information, I'd love to look at it), Spencer's mother contacted Gersh and asked her to go to her property and make some recommendations.

            She apparently did so, and even negotiated a smaller commission for herself, after being asked by Spencer's mother to sell the property for her.

            So how exactly was it that "This bitch was going after Richard Spencer's -MOTHER-"?

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday December 08 2017, @05:03PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08 2017, @05:03PM (#607269) Journal
          lx didn't make that distinction and my reply was to him. Moving on, Anglin appears to have crossed the line [theguardian.com] by publishing personal contact information not just for the plaintiff, Tanya Gersh of the above lawsuit, but her family as well.

          In mid-December, a local news story about the spat was picked up by online trolls, including Anglin, who featured the story on his site the Daily Stormer as an outrageous example of “harassment and extortion”, and urged his supporters to “take action”.

          “Are y’all ready for an old fashioned Troll Storm?” he asked.

          “NO VIOLENCE OR THREATS OF VIOLENCE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO THAT,” Anglin wrote. “Just make your opinions known. Tell them you are sickened by their Jew agenda.”

          The post included phone numbers, e-mail addresses, addresses and social media handles for Gersh, her husband, her young son, and the founders of a local anti-Nazi human rights group.

          While Anglin is probably safe on the accusation of inciting criminal activity (at least from the post in question, since he explicitly called for no threats), he's probably going to lose the lawsuit due to revealing private contact information, particularly for parties that had no part in Gersh's actions.

  • (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.

    • (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.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by idiot_king on Friday December 08 2017, @02:06PM (28 children)

    by idiot_king (6587) on Friday December 08 2017, @02:06PM (#607183)

    NAZIS MUST BE CRUSHED AT ALL COSTS. This is finally a glimmer of hope in Drumpfenfurher's Fourth Reich.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @02:53PM (14 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @02:53PM (#607195)

      I find it interesting that some of the sons of fathers who fought nazis few decades ago have turned nazis. The mind boggles.

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." #MAGA

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday December 08 2017, @07:04PM (13 children)

        by bradley13 (3053) on Friday December 08 2017, @07:04PM (#607346) Homepage Journal

        Ya know, it's irritating that clueless idiots keep comparing the alt-right to Nazis. It just demonstrates that they haven't actually read their history books.. Nazi is an abbreviation for National Socialist. So: nationalism + socialism. Now, the alt-right may be nationalist, but it is definitely not socialist.

        What people presumably think they mean is "white supremacist". But that's not what the alt-right is, either. The nearest you can claim is that the alt-right is against multiculturalism. As in: You have your culture in your country, and we have our culture in our country - let's stop trying to mix them, because it actually doesn't work very well. In practice that means that the alt-right is against immigration, except between compatible cultures.

        Of course, there are real white supremacists, and some of them claim the alt-right as their home. Every political movement has some unpleasant people who want to associate themselves with it. Using that unpleasant minority as a broad brush with which to tar your political opponents is disingenuous and dishonest.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday December 08 2017, @07:55PM (10 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday December 08 2017, @07:55PM (#607372)

          Nazi is an abbreviation for National Socialist. So: nationalism + socialism. Now, the alt-right may be nationalist, but it is definitely not socialist.

          Oh god, not this again: I thought everybody knew that the Nazis only put "socialist" in their name in the first place because it sounded good for recruitment. The Nazis were about as socialist as Donald Trump is Asian.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 4, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday December 08 2017, @08:00PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Friday December 08 2017, @08:00PM (#607375)

            Hitler also had this whole slight obsession with destroying communism, you might recall. Back in the early days the Nazis and the KPD were basically bludgeoning each other to death in the streets.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @08:39PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @08:39PM (#607398)

            What? Donald Trump is Asian? I knew he was born in Bermuda, but Asian? Explains the eyes, and the dentures. Not the hair, though.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday December 08 2017, @08:43PM (1 child)

              by tangomargarine (667) on Friday December 08 2017, @08:43PM (#607403)

              Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Queens, New York City.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @08:59PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @08:59PM (#607419)

                RhumbaButter! Stop it! I am using the "big lie" technique to birther Trump! He cannot legally be precedent of the United States because he was born in the Bahamas!

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by bradley13 on Friday December 08 2017, @08:55PM (4 children)

            by bradley13 (3053) on Friday December 08 2017, @08:55PM (#607415) Homepage Journal

            "Oh god, not this again: I thought everybody knew that the Nazis only put "socialist" in their name in the first place because it sounded good for recruitment."

            That's a nice little fantasy you've built up, but you should really go read your history.

            Hitler on Nazism: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism". Nazi Germany exerted national control of the means of production, direct national control of the entire economy. That is the very definition of socialism.

            The thing is: the extreme right and the extreme left are actually the same damned thing. The map wraps around. Whether you're a right-wing tyrant or a left-wing socialist, it's all about state power, about telling those stupid peons (i.e. all of us) what they have to do.

            --
            Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:03PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:03PM (#607422)

              Yeah, but all these alt-right alt-white guys are all in favor of socialism. Almost all of them are on government military pensions, disability, unemployment (more of them, recently), or other "socialist" programs. Perhaps you are confusing them with their funders, like the "libertarian" (when the rich say this, is just means "less taxes for me" libertarianism) Kock Bros.?

            • (Score: 5, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday December 08 2017, @09:09PM (1 child)

              by tangomargarine (667) on Friday December 08 2017, @09:09PM (#607429)

              Yes, Hitler lied a lot that the Nazis were Socialist. But that didn't make it true. Look at what he did, not what he said: rounding up trade unionists and communists.

              Go look it up on Snopes [snopes.com] or something.

              For members of the Nazi Party, in fact, defending socialism on its own terms was a risky activity which could result in ejection from the party, or worse. Of party leader and dissenter Otto Strasser (whose similarly-minded brother, Gregor, would ultimately be assassinated by the Nazis), William Shirer writes:

              Unfortunately for him, he had taken seriously not only the word “socialist” but the word “workers” in the party’s official name of National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He had supported certain strikes of the socialist trade unions and demanded that the party come out for nationalization of industry. This of course was heresy to Hitler, who accused Otto Strasser of professing the cardinal sins of “democracy and liberalism.” On May 21 and 22, 1930, the Fuehrer had a showdown with his rebellious subordinate and demanded complete submission. When Otto refused, he was booted out of the party.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:48AM

                by Reziac (2489) on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:48AM (#607598) Homepage

                Well, in that case, Lenin lied a lot that the USSR was communist.

                The problem is that both species of workers' paradise require enforcement at gunpoint.

                --
                And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @11:02PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @11:02PM (#607492)

              Nazi Germany exerted national control of the means of production, direct national control of the entire economy. That is the very definition of socialism.

              History disagrees with you here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany [wikipedia.org]

              Actually looks like they spoke about nationalization, which they sometimes did. On the other hand they also privatized quite a lot. So all over the place and deemed unimportant.

          • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:42AM

            by Reziac (2489) on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:42AM (#607593) Homepage

            http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/platform-of-the-national-socialist-german-workers-rsquo-party [jewishvirtuallibrary.org]

            Starting with Item #12.

            ===
              Breaking the Servitude of Interest.

                    12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

                    13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

                    14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

                    15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

                    16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

                    17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

                    18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.

            ===

            Not so different from the Communists, or modern-day socialists. And to save myself a lot of words,

            https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/the-nazi-party-a-left-wing-liberal-movement/ [wordpress.com]

            --
            And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:57PM (#607456)

          Ya know, it's irritating that clueless idiots keep comparing the alt-right to Nazis. It just demonstrates that they haven't actually read their history books.. Nazi is an abbreviation for National Socialist. So: nationalism + socialism. Now, the alt-right may be nationalist, but it is definitely not socialist.

          And the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is totally democratic! Makes one wonder why we're harassing a free country like that, doesn't it?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @10:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @10:47PM (#607485)

          Don't forget the Liberal Party of Australia. They'd be liberal, right? Wrong. That's the conservative party.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday December 08 2017, @04:04PM (1 child)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday December 08 2017, @04:04PM (#607242)

      Drumpfenführer's

      We've been over this before: the H goes before the R, dude. Or if you don't want to figure out the umlaut, Fuehrer is also acceptable.

      Or just continue looking like an idiot, I guess.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @07:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @07:04PM (#607347)

        In his defense, he was using Trump's spelling, not the original auf Deutsch.

    • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Friday December 08 2017, @06:58PM (10 children)

      by aristarchus (2645) on Friday December 08 2017, @06:58PM (#607341) Journal

      NAZIS MUST BE CRUSHED AT ALL COSTS.

      You know, there never was a surrender by the Dritte Reich, no peace treaty that legally put an end to the war in Europe, unlike the Pacific. So technically, the Allies (including Drumpenfurer's America) are still at war with the Nazis. Thus measures to counter or suppress their propaganda (we now call this "information warfare") are perfectly allowable under the International Rules of Armed Conflict. Also, punch a Nazi in the face. They are the enemy of humanity, and specifically the enemy of the United States of America. Yes, Virginia, even of Montana.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @07:50PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @07:50PM (#607370)

        Also, punch a Nazi in the face. They are the enemy of humanity, and specifically the enemy of the United States of America.

        That's odd - aren't you doing much the same thing that the Daily Stormer is being sued over?

        • (Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Friday December 08 2017, @08:10PM (2 children)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Friday December 08 2017, @08:10PM (#607380) Journal

          No, like the lawyers in the article, you have to track down Anglin all on your own, if you can. But I have no trouble justifying self-defense against Nazis. I remember when those bastards invaded Athens.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:09AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:09AM (#607586)

            Hunting down a Nazi to punch him in the face is not self defense. Stop talking stupid.

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:38PM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:38PM (#607778) Journal

              How about hunting down Nazis, snatching them and spiriting them back to Israel to stand trial for crimes against humanity, and being Banality of Evil [wikipedia.org]?

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday December 08 2017, @07:52PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday December 08 2017, @07:52PM (#607371)

        "It is impossible at present to foresee in what circumstances hostilities with Germany may in the end be suspended. We cannot tell, therefore, what mode of procedure would be most suitable; whether, for example, it will be found best to have a full and detailed armistice; or a shorter armistice conferring general powers; or possibly no armistice at all, but a series of local capitulations by enemy commanders."[2]

        The agreed text was in three parts. The first part consisted of a brief preamble "The German Government and German High Command, recognising and acknowledging the complete defeat of the German armed forces on land, at sea and in the air, hereby announce Germany's unconditional surrender".[4]

        Although the German military signatories of the May 1945 German Instruments of Surrender had been acting under instructions from Admiral Dönitz, none of the Allied Governments recognised the acting Flensburg Government as validly exercising civil power, and consequently the Allies had insisted that the German signatories should explicitly represent the German High Command alone. On the 23 of May 1945, the purported German government in Flensburg was abolished, and its members taken into captivity as prisoners of war.[29]

        Nevertheless, as the surrender instrument of 8 May 1945 had been signed only by German military representatives, the full civil provisions for the unconditional surrender of Germany remained without explicit formal basis. Consequently, the EAC text for Unconditional Surrender of Germany, redrafted as a declaration and with an extended explanatory preamble, was adopted unilaterally by the now four Allied Powers as the Declaration regarding the defeat of Germany on 5 June 1945.[4] This spelled out the Allied position that as a result of its complete defeat Germany had no government or central authority, and that the vacated civil authority in Germany had consequently been assumed solely by the four Allied Representative Powers (the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the French Republic) on behalf of the Allied Governments overall

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Instrument_of_Surrender [wikipedia.org]

        I mean, Hitler had offed himself and the German government had kind of collapsed. There wasn't a whole lot of authority around to sign it with other than the military.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by Eristone on Friday December 08 2017, @08:00PM (4 children)

        by Eristone (4775) on Friday December 08 2017, @08:00PM (#607374)

        I think this document [wikipedia.org] says otherwise regarding the surrender of Nazi Germany.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday December 08 2017, @08:34PM (3 children)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Friday December 08 2017, @08:34PM (#607396) Journal

          If you want to maintain that Nazi Germany has in fact actually surrendered, then these neo-Nazis are in fact guilty of something called"War Treason" [wikipedia.org]. If you continue to fight after your nation has surrendered, you are no longer a legal combatant, but you are an illegal enemy combatant. So, "Punch a Nazi in the face" and ship them off to Guantanamo? Worst of the worst, and all that.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:29AM (2 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:29AM (#607588) Journal

            Nazi Germany was defeated. No surrender really necessary, they were utterly defeated. The survivors surrendered. You are grasping at straws here.

            How ironic that a person who styles himself as a philosopher believes that an idea, or philosophy, or belief can be excised from humanity. You shouldn't even hope that such a thing is possible. If it were, the idea would still be there, to be re-discovered a few generations down the road. And, since the rest of humanity has forgotten about Nazism, the fresh discovery will meet no resistance.

            Be thankful that mankind has a memory, and be thankful that some small number of idiots are enthralled by this idea of supremacy.

            And, no, the Nazis aren't taking over. Because you are so very fearful of Nazis, you see them everywhere. They hide in your closet, they hide under your bed, they are at every protest, they're watching you at the airport.

            Fear can be a useful tool, but in your case, fear rules you. If you can conquer your fear, you will realize that Nazis are a powerless bunch of losers and posers. They can't even convince themselves that they have power, but they've convinced you.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:21AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:21AM (#607661)

              #RunawayFondledMe And it wasn't the first time. He is of the Roy Moore school of thought, but only more toward prepubescent boys! Runaway, you pederast!

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 09 2017, @04:57PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @04:57PM (#607715) Journal

                See your optomoligist. You're confusing me with Aristarchus. He does kinda look like me - two legs, two arms, a torso and a head. But, I'm much better looking. I'm also the bigger asshole. Aristarchus is just a wannabe asshole.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 08 2017, @02:59PM (6 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday December 08 2017, @02:59PM (#607197) Journal

    A surreal aspect of this story is that neither Jews nor Nazis are numerous in that area. There are maybe 10 Jews in the state of Montana, and possibly twice that number of Nazis (most of whom bled over the border from the panhandle of Idaho, or re-settled from somewhere else in the country). As such the rest of the world will get the mistaken impression that this phenomenon is indicative of the people who live there. It's not. It's more like news that a unicorn crossed horns with a hippogriff, with the locals shrugging and saying they had no idea either unicorns or hippogriffs were in the area.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by nitehawk214 on Friday December 08 2017, @03:29PM (2 children)

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday December 08 2017, @03:29PM (#607218)

      Minorities being rare in an area makes them an easy target for the hate groups.

      As far as Nazis not being numerous. I don't think they are numerous anywhere in the USA. But they are loud as fuck which gives people the impression that the country is only a couple steps away from 1938.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 1, Troll) by Scrutinizer on Friday December 08 2017, @04:03PM

        by Scrutinizer (6534) on Friday December 08 2017, @04:03PM (#607241)

        But [Nazis] are loud as fuck which gives people the impression that the country is only a couple steps away from 1938.

        Who's holding the megaphone? Gee, it's almost as if the mainstream media's owners want the general public to think there's a big resurgence of Nazmunists (read: violent authoritarians) in the USA... Divide-and-conquer, still relevant more than 2,000 years later.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 08 2017, @05:17PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday December 08 2017, @05:17PM (#607273) Journal

        I think there has to be some number larger than a couple of guys before a minority can be a viable target for real hate speech. Else, they're a novelty, not a threat. Where i grew up there was one Vietnamese family and their son was elected president of the student body. There was also one kid who was a white supremacist who memorably got up to denounce the corrosive influence of blacks and jews and all of us white kids who constituted 100% of the class looked around at each other and said "what black kids? What jews?"

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:09PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:09PM (#607428)

      There are maybe 10 Jews in the state of Montana,

      Try 1,450 [jewishvirtuallibrary.org]. All the Nazis, however, are out-of-staters, Californicators, most likely.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday December 09 2017, @02:56AM (1 child)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday December 09 2017, @02:56AM (#607583) Journal

        So, 0.1% of the population of montana. I stand by "not numerous." I'd also opine the dramatic growth from 10 is mostly Californicators, too.

        The 2010 census lists 4K black people, and 65K native americans. So, yeah, jews are unicorns (or hippogriffs, if you prefer) relative to the incidence of other groups in the state.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @10:22AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @10:22AM (#607957)

          I'd also opine the dramatic growth from 10 is mostly Californicators, too.

          Out-of-stater, eh? You do know that the unofficial motto of Montana is "Gut shoot 'em at the border", and they are not talking about the Mexican border. But then, you have made it obvious you do not live in Big Sky Country.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday December 08 2017, @03:37PM (6 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 08 2017, @03:37PM (#607224) Homepage Journal

    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

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 08 2017, @03:39PM (#607226) Homepage Journal

      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)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08 2017, @05:36PM (#607283) Journal
      OTOH, lawsuits seem appropriate here. Some blogger in Ohio just irresponsibly caused you and your entire family a great deal of stress and effort (all their contact information needs to be changed and they may need to increase their security as well). What more appropriate method of redress is there than 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!

      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

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 08 2017, @06:31PM (#607328) Homepage Journal

        OTOH, lawsuits seem appropriate here. Some blogger in Ohio just irresponsibly caused you and your entire family a great deal of stress and effort (all their contact information needs to be changed and they may need to increase their security as well). What more appropriate method of redress is there than a lawsuit?

        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.

        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.

        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)

      by Empyrean (5241) on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:44AM (#607594)

      Is litigation in the US a national sport or just a pastime?

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:58AM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:58AM (#607603) Homepage Journal

        Is litigation in the US a national sport or just a pastime?

        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

      by arcz (4501) on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:23AM (#607633) Journal

      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...

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Scrutinizer on Friday December 08 2017, @03:58PM (23 children)

    by Scrutinizer (6534) on Friday December 08 2017, @03:58PM (#607234)

    More than meets the eye. From the PDF complaint [splcenter.org]:

    Ms. Gersh called a president of her realty company to ask permission to charge Ms. Spencer a reduced commission

    It's not just hurt feels and harassment as TFS and news articles suggest. There was money involved here in the form of a "lost" real estate sale commission.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Friday December 08 2017, @04:43PM (22 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 08 2017, @04:43PM (#607258) Homepage Journal

      Why not include the complete quote, since you seem stuck on quote completeness, even in fiction:

      Ms. Gersh called a president of her realty company to ask permission to charge Ms. Spencer a reduced commission,
      and the president agreed. Ms. Gersh made plans to donate her portion of this reduced commission to a community organization and said as much in an email to Ms. Spencer.

      So collecting less money from a client is now a reason for that client to be angry enough to engage trolls to harass her and her family?

      If my real estate agent arranged for me to pay less for selling my property, I'd send them a fruit basket, not sic trolls on them.

      Or am I missing something here?

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:15PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:15PM (#607272)

        Why not include the complete quote, since you seem stuck on quote completeness, even in fiction:

        None of the omitted text from the "complete quote" invalidates my point (unlike the example you refer to [soylentnews.org]). There was at one time plans for Gersh to receive money from a real estate sale commission. There was more than the mere altruism TFS and linked articles suggest at play here. While it might not have made any difference, its omission speaks more loudly than the mere fact the sale plan existed.

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by NotSanguine on Friday December 08 2017, @05:23PM (6 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 08 2017, @05:23PM (#607276) Homepage Journal

          So collecting less money from a client is now a reason for that client to be angry enough to engage trolls to harass her and her family?

          If my real estate agent arranged for me to pay less for selling my property, I'd send them a fruit basket, not sic trolls on them.

          Or am I missing something here?

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:29PM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:29PM (#607279)

            There. Was. More. Than. Just. Simple. Contact. Between. Gersh. And. Spencer.

            There. Was. At. One. Point. A. Plan. For. Gersh. To. Profit. From. Spencer's. Sale. Of. Commercial. Real. Estate.

            Could. That. Have. Provided. Some. Additional. Cause. For. Conflict?

            Possibly. Or. Possibly. Not.

            But. It. Is. Curious. Why. That. Profit. Motive. Was. Omitted. From. The. Summary. And. Story.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:45PM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:45PM (#607288)

              Ms. Gersh made plans to donate her portion of this reduced commission to a community organization and said as much in an email to Ms. Spencer.

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:59PM (#607300)

                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)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:12PM (#607430)

                  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

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:36PM (#607732)

                    In no way does some small aside matter, threats were made. What the motivation was is irrelevant

                    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

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @05:39AM (#607625) Journal

                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??

                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.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Friday December 08 2017, @05:46PM (13 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08 2017, @05:46PM (#607290) Journal

        So collecting less money from a client is now a reason for that client to be angry enough to engage trolls to harass her and her family?

        Unless she planned to profit in other ways. As the saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Googling the original saying [worldwidewords.org] got me this BTW, attributed to a Seba Smith:

        “This is a money digging world of ours; and, as it is said, ‘there are more ways than one to skin a cat,’ so are there more ways than one of digging for money”.

        And money digging may well be at the root here. If realtor Tanya Gersh could pressure the owner of the property, Sherry Spencer into selling well below market, she could then split the profit with the eventual buyer. That could be much larger than a few extra percent from the usual commissions on sell and buy, particularly on a commercial property.

        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Friday December 08 2017, @06:40PM (12 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 08 2017, @06:40PM (#607337) Homepage Journal

          I have no evidence as to the veracity of your speculation one way or the other. Your speculation may well be correct. I don't know. And neither do you. And Scrutinizer (well, unless he's Richard Spencer, his mother or someone involved in any potential sale) certainly doesn't have any clue either.

          My initial response [soylentnews.org] to Scrutinizer's [soylentnews.org] was to point out that the quote he used provided *zero* evidence for his assertion. In fact, it contradicted his assertion.

          You, at least, didn't point to a statement that contradicts your assertion and then claim that it proved it instead.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @05:32AM (11 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @05:32AM (#607623) Journal

            I have no evidence as to the veracity of your speculation one way or the other.

            When I hear of weird stuff like that, the first thing I think of is what do they expect to gain from it? Here, there are several ways that the realtor could gain, including the straightforward sales commission which while reduced would be far from zero for a significant property, from pressuring the older woman into a sale. As to its relevance to the current situation? Here's my view.

            If the defendant can show the plaintiff had a great deal of culpability in causing the situation that led to the original trolling, then they may be able to use that in an attempt to lessen the eventual payout. Something like "I know now what I did is wrong, but their mean actions caused me to lose my judgment." Elsewhere [soylentnews.org] in this thread, an AC posted:

            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??

            So yes, it can matter. Blaming the victim occasionally works.

            • (Score: 2, Troll) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:00AM (10 children)

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:00AM (#607629) Homepage Journal

              Sure. As I said, your speculation might be true. But that's all it is: speculation.

              That and a dollar will get you, well, a dollar.

              Personally, I prefer not to speculate. Unless there's an eventual out of court settlement, we'll likely (and we may even if there is a settlement) get a lot more information. The jury (assuming there is a trial) will likely be in the best position to conclude what happened. I don't live in Montana, so I won't be one of those jurors.

              I based my comments on the legal documents and published news reports I read. Are they *all* complete hogwash? Probably not. However, I do give the least weight to the legal documents filed as, in our adversarial system, they're usually the most biased.

              From a principled standpoint, I will say that there's never a good reason for someone (whether it be an Internet troll, a prosecutor or a guy who just had "his" parking spot stolen) to threaten or harass someone, or incite others to do so. And that part isn't in dispute. Which is, in my mind, reprehensible.

              If there was some sort of monetary dispute (as you speculate), the correct venue would be the courts, not despicable threats against a whole family.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:51AM (9 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:51AM (#607638) Journal

                Sure. As I said, your speculation might be true. But that's all it is: speculation.

                And that's fine. The point of this thread, after all, was to speculate on the matter. And glancing at the actual emails [scribd.com] between Gersh and Spencer does indicate to me considerable support for the speculation. For example, from a November 16, 2016 email:

                ...Please stay in close contact with me if you need anything or have questions at all about what is going on with the community. I put out many fires today just by mentioning the possible sale. All is very quiet right now waiting for your announcement. I will have the public statement drafted shortly as well for you to review.

                A realtor with at least two massive conflict of interests (both the previously mentioned personal gain and via potential of donations to a local chapter of the Human Rights Network) claims they are somehow preventing "community" issues (which a later email indicates means public protests right outside the property of Spencer's notorious son, Richard) through this sale. And here, my previous speculation turns out to be sufficient. The personal gain conflict of interest exists because there are numerous ways for Gersh to profit from this transaction (monetarily or through increased status), even if she was sincere in her promises as listed in the email.

                • (Score: 2, Troll) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 09 2017, @07:31AM (4 children)

                  by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday December 09 2017, @07:31AM (#607645) Homepage Journal

                  >...Please stay in close contact with me if you need anything or have questions at all about what is going on with the community. I put out many fires today just by mentioning the possible sale. All is very quiet right now waiting for your announcement. I will have the public statement drafted shortly as well for you to review.

                  Yup. If someone said that to me, I'd be so angry that I'd want to rip their lungs out.

                  My understanding is that Spencer's mother *asked* Gersh (after all, it was Spencer's mother who made contact with Gerh, not the other way around) to sell the building. It's also my understanding that Spencer's mother specifically requested that Gersh write the public statement.

                  And yes, if she sold the property, she'd make a commission. How is that a conflict of interest? That's how she earns a living, and she was *directed* by the building's owner to do just that.

                  I'll go ahead and speculate too now. When Richard Spencer found out that his mother wanted to sell the property, he was pissed. He was counting on selling it himself once she kicked and now she was going to get the money, not him (There's that financial motive). Then he found out that a *JEW* was handling the sale and that just infuriated him. So he bitched about it to his good buddy Anglin and paid him to "fix that jew bitch but good!"

                  And so, in exchange for some cash, Anglin got his trolls to work, threatening and harassing Gersh and her family.

                  That's just as plausible as anything you've come up with. And I would have left that whole bit alone, but you just had to keep pushing your completely unsupported by any facts (in fact, the tone and content of the email section you quoted implies a cordial and positive working relationship) bullshit.

                  By doing so, you are implicitly endorsing the actions of these folks to terrorize, harass and heap abuse on an entire family -- those actions are *not* in dispute by anyone. So you consider that to be acceptable behavior, do you?

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:46AM (3 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:46AM (#607667) Journal
                    Let us keep in mind why we got on this topic in the first place. A poster, Scrutinizer stated that there was money involved "in the form of a 'lost' real estate sale commission". You pooh-poohed that idea on the basis that the realtor, Gersh was getting less commission than originally.

                    So collecting less money from a client is now a reason for that client to be angry enough to engage trolls to harass her and her family?

                    If my real estate agent arranged for me to pay less for selling my property, I'd send them a fruit basket, not sic trolls on them.

                    I noted the obvious flaw with that idea, namely, that there are other ways to profit from the situation. Thus, we have the shifty situation where Gersh claims to have some influence over protests that would devalue her client's property combined with a financial interest (both personal and perhaps for the "Love Really Matters" organization which she purported to have an association with in the emails) in pressuring her for a sale, even going as far as to link progress of the sale to the temporary cessation of protests. That goes beyond the usual conflicts of interest that any realtor would have with a client.

                    This may well become a part of the trial. Blaming the victim does sometimes have some traction in court. Anglin is still going down (since Gersh's husband and child were also targeted by the "troll-storm" and it won't take much exposure to Daily Storm web pages, which inevitably will be part of the evidence, to turn a jury against him), but it could reduce the amount that juries would credit as harm to Tanya Gersh herself and may even generate some sympathy for Anglin who will sorely need it.

                    So that's why I brought it up as a relevant bit of speculation to both the coming trial and this thread.

                    That's just as plausible as anything you've come up with. And I would have left that whole bit alone, but you just had to keep pushing your completely unsupported by any facts (in fact, the tone and content of the email section you quoted implies a cordial and positive working relationship) bullshit.

                    In other words, you speculated, I corrected your speculation with my own informed speculation, and now it's bullshit because reasons. I'll note also most con men that I've heard of have a cordial and positive working relationship with their marks. It's pretty much part of the definition of "con".

                    As to your above speculation, it is quite legitimate. The plaintiff may be able to get access to email and other records of Anglin or the Daily Storm organization (these sorts of trials can get interesting during the discovery phase as a result). That in turn may show collusion with Richard Spencer or other white nationalist figures of note in the troll-storm.

                    By doing so, you are implicitly endorsing the actions of these folks to terrorize, harass and heap abuse on an entire family -- those actions are *not* in dispute by anyone. So you consider that to be acceptable behavior, do you?

                    Given that I didn't implicitly do that nor would a reasonable person deduce that from my writings, perhaps we should go back to the adult conversation we were having?

                    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:34AM (2 children)

                      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:34AM (#607677) Homepage Journal

                      In other words, you speculated, I corrected your speculation with my own informed speculation, and now it's bullshit because reasons. I'll note also most con men that I've heard of have a cordial and positive working relationship with their marks. It's pretty much part of the definition of "con".

                      Yep. I did. In response to your own continued speculation. However, you didn't "correct" my speculation. In response to the only speculative statement I made, your response was:

                      As to your above speculation, it is quite legitimate. The plaintiff may be able to get access to email and other records of Anglin or the Daily Storm organization (these sorts of trials can get interesting during the discovery phase as a result). That in turn may show collusion with Richard Spencer or other white nationalist figures of note in the troll-storm.

                      I'm not sure how that counts as a "correction". You're being disingenuous in trying to alter the sequence of events.

                      To be clear, that speculation was:

                      I'll go ahead and speculate too now. When Richard Spencer found out that his mother wanted to sell the property, he was pissed. He was counting on selling it himself once she kicked and now she was going to get the money, not him (There's that financial motive). Then he found out that a *JEW* was handling the sale and that just infuriated him. So he bitched about it to his good buddy Anglin and paid him to "fix that jew bitch but good!"

                      Further, the corpus of your comments in this thread give a very different impression of your motives than you claim.

                      By doing so, you are implicitly endorsing the actions of these folks to terrorize, harass and heap abuse on an entire family -- those actions are *not* in dispute by anyone. So you consider that to be acceptable behavior, do you?

                      Given that I didn't implicitly do that nor would a reasonable person deduce that from my writings, perhaps we should go back to the adult conversation we were having?

                      That's as may be. However, I got a very different impression. As an adult, you should know that how others perceive you is *who you are* as far as they can tell. Perhaps you should attempt to be clearer in the future.

                      The only *real* facts we have so far is that Anglin and his thugs went after Gersh and her family.

                      You stated that there could be mitigating factors for Anglin. What could mitigate the impact of such actions? That (to me at least) clearly indicates that you have a bias against Gersh -- and if you're biased against Gersh, you are implicitly siding with threats, harassment and thuggery -- actions which are not in dispute.

                      I don't know Gersh and I really don't give a rat's ass about her or her family. But *no one* deserves to be treated that way. Not Gersh. Not you. Not Richard Spencer. Not even Anglin. Full stop.

                      --
                      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                      • (Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:49PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:49PM (#607736) Journal

                        The only *real* facts we have so far is that Anglin and his thugs went after Gersh and her family.

                        As well as the other *real* facts discussed in this thread, like emails, existence of conflicts of interest, etc.

                        I don't know Gersh and I really don't give a rat's ass about her or her family. But *no one* deserves to be treated that way. Not Gersh. Not you. Not Richard Spencer. Not even Anglin. Full stop.

                        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.

                      • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:52PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @06:52PM (#607737)

                        The only *real* facts we have so far is that Anglin and his thugs went after Gersh and her family.

                        O RLY? Is the quote from Gersh's email real for you, or is it not?
                        If it is, start explaining how it materially differs from the classic "Nice property you have here, shame if something were to happen to it".

                • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:26AM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:26AM (#607662)

                  khallow, fuck you and your government provided salary, you leech upon the system you despise! Get a real job, if you are so smart! Oh, you can't? Then shut the fuck up, and join the government workers union. Oh, you already have? Good job, khallow! Would you like a pension?

                  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:54AM (2 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:54AM (#607670) Journal
                    What's weird here is I can't even figure out why you're whining. Usually, there's some tell in such a post, but this is so incoherent it doesn't even have that. Oh well, must not have been important.

                    But since some people apparently need to be explicitly told, I don't approve of this retarded troll-storm. Even if somehow Anglin's intentions were pure and Gersh's ignoble, he publicized contact information for innocent people who had nothing to do with the Gersh-Spencer affair, and the resulting storm of threats and whatnot are fairly predictable and thus, should have been anticipated by a reasonable person. So he should and most likely will go down hard for what happened.
                    • (Score: 1, Troll) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:37AM (1 child)

                      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:37AM (#607678) Homepage Journal

                      But since some people apparently need to be explicitly told, I don't approve of this retarded troll-storm. Even if somehow Anglin's intentions were pure and Gersh's ignoble, he publicized contact information for innocent people who had nothing to do with the Gersh-Spencer affair, and the resulting storm of threats and whatnot are fairly predictable and thus, should have been anticipated by a reasonable person. So he should and most likely will go down hard for what happened.

                      Although it wasn't directed at me, you've clarified your statements and sentiments. Thank you.

                      If I misunderstood you previously, my apologies.

                      --
                      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:44PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:44PM (#607837) Journal
                        It's good.

                        Reading further, we have Anglin bragging [onion.link] (.onion link should work for a time) a few days after the fact that the "troll-storm" was working and that he had control over it. At that point, he would have known that there was a lot of threats of violence and had a great opportunity to call for an end to the lawbreaking.

                        Richard Spencer didn’t declare this protest. I did.

                        And I decide when it ends.

                        I don’t even know Richard Spencer. I have talked to him on the phone like one time. This isn’t about Richard Spencer. It is about justice.

                        Vicious Jews have attacked, slandered, threatened and attempted to extort an innocent woman because they dislike her son’s politics. And me and my people are not going to end this until justice is served.

                        Anglin made no attempt to tell "my people" to tone it down a little and to stop making threats. Early on, it sounds like he could have made the case that he was looking for a peaceful protest, but some bad apples got out of hand. By December 23, he would have heard what those bad apples were doing. And any time after December 23 (almost a year now), he could have edited the above web page to urge his followers to behave. That didn't happen. I think he's going down hard.

                        Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised to see Daily Stormer disappear and then come up again in a year or two. He probably doesn't have any assets to take and it's not hard for someone to give him enough money to start the site up again.

(1) 2