Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘You should have died in the Holocaust’: Neo-Nazi harassment is not free speech, judge rules
WaPo ^ | 11-17-2018 | Deanna Paul

Posted on 11/17/2018 3:00:42 PM PST by NRx

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: Sirius Lee; Freedom of Speech Wins

You are confusing Richard Spencer with Jason Kessler


41 posted on 11/17/2018 4:33:10 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

You can certainly convey a threat over the phone.


42 posted on 11/17/2018 4:43:07 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Schumer delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NRx; OddLane; marktwain; Greetings_Puny_Humans; jospehm20; SaveFerris; sourcery; 2banana; ...
Judge Dana Christensen is a Bammy Skidmark appointee. He considers himself a Federal judge-President, who makes law from the the Federal bench, in his own replica Oval Office inside his judge's chambers:

In late August 2018, Christensen placed a 14-day hold on grizzly bear hunting in Wyoming and Idaho after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lifted federal protections for grizzlies in Yellowstone National Park areas in 2017.

On September 24, 2018, Christensen released a 48-page ruling restoring the protections and cancelling the hunts altogether, citing that Fish & Wildlife's analysis of the threats to grizzly bears was lacking and that they "failed to make a reasoned decision" in considering the impact of delisting the Yellowstone grizzlies from protected species status.

Juck the fudge. He's a despotic Lefty authoritarian.

43 posted on 11/17/2018 4:50:44 PM PST by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

“First they came for the Neo-Nazis....”


44 posted on 11/17/2018 4:53:40 PM PST by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Can you commit an assault over the phone?
= = =

Calif PC 422 - Criminal Threats - may apply (in CA, at least):

California Penal Code 422 PC defines the crime of “criminal threats” (formerly known as terrorist threats).

A “criminal threat” is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone and

1. that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family,

2. the threat is specific and unequivocal and

3. you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device.

Criminal threats can be charged whether or not you have the ability to carry out the threat...and even if you don’t actually intend to execute the threat.


45 posted on 11/17/2018 4:56:18 PM PST by Scrambler Bob (You know that I am full of /S)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Scrambler Bob

I’d be careful with that statute as I’ve read several Supreme Court cases that denied such a possibility (although it’s been awhile). It’s also California.

In any case, not even the made up examples by Gersh run afoul of that statute.


46 posted on 11/17/2018 5:00:38 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Color me shocked./s


47 posted on 11/17/2018 5:01:46 PM PST by dynachrome (When an empire dies, you are left with vast monuments in front of which peasants squat to defecate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
I notice they did not mention the Judge's name until way down the article, or who they were appointed by.

The grizzly decision was pure political activism on the part of the judge.


48 posted on 11/17/2018 5:10:51 PM PST by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity
"terrorizing and threatening a person is not “free speech”

It is according to the demonrats who continue to threaten violence against everything Republican or white...

49 posted on 11/17/2018 5:41:24 PM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Skywise

If this had been a black person are a Muslim being threaten the left and media would have been calling for the person to be tared,feathered and prosecuted. Threatening are calling on someone are advocating doing something that would be a crime that person should be prosecuted. Example calling for bombing the WH, assassinating the president are violence against a person in this case a Jewish person should be prosecuted in Federal court where there is no parole with a sentence of 10+ years


50 posted on 11/17/2018 5:45:52 PM PST by klsparrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NRx
I completely disagree with you and this ruling.

Trump gets thousands of Twitter responses harassing him a day—do you think that should be stopped by a judge, too? I’m not for what’s being said, but we must be free to say it.

Free Republic could be shut down for the same subjective reasons by a different judge, because our words are offensive and harassing, too.

51 posted on 11/17/2018 6:00:42 PM PST by ConservativeMind (Trump: Befuddling Democrats, Republicans, and the Media for the benefit of the US and all mankind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
Agree.

This ruling is the same pretext used by liberals to close accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, et.al.; and for far less.

Give them an inch and they take it all.

52 posted on 11/17/2018 6:45:34 PM PST by yesthatjallen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: NRx
On Wednesday, a Montana federal judge denied Anglin’s motion to dismiss the case, holding that speech in encouraging anti-Semitic harassment was not entitled to First Amendment protection.

.....But Bashing Christians and discrimination against them is right on!

53 posted on 11/17/2018 7:17:04 PM PST by Bommer (Help 2ndDivisionVet - https://www.gofundme.com/mvc.php?route=category&term=married-recent-amputee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

Agreed.


54 posted on 11/17/2018 9:00:42 PM PST by YogicCowboy ("I am not entirely on anyone's side, because no one is entirely on mine." - J. R. R. Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

#13. Re Can you commit an assault over the phone? Yes, and I helped put a psycho in jail for doing just that - death threats. Worked with the FBI and a local police department to track down, arrest, and extradite the punk to a waiting jail cell in another state.

The stupid guy (who had mental problems), threatened me, over the phone (I had only met him briefly to say hello as he was with a friend of my daughter’s) and said that he was going to kill me, my wife, my daughter and a bunch of kids in the neighborhood.

He was lucky my son was away at Basic Training or he would have been dead in a few minutes.

My reply to this clown was “Do you know who the fuck you are threatening and who I work for”? He didn’t, and that’s why he went back to jail. I made a phone call and that set law enforcement into action. Only my county screwed up royally - they don’t take death threats seriously EVEN if you have them taped.

The FBI and another county acted very professionally, and the neighborhood kids beat the police to getting a photo id of the perp (it would have taken two weeks to get it from the State DMV. We had it in 10 minutes and the Lt. had it in eleven. I love it when a group of savy kids get together to put a dirtbag in jail.

so yes, some “speech” is not protected by the First Amendment. You are free to say it but you are also free t go to jail for the threats contained in it.


55 posted on 11/17/2018 10:20:31 PM PST by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
The stupid guy (who had mental problems), threatened me, over the phone (I had only met him briefly to say hello as he was with a friend of my daughter’s) and said that he was going to kill me, my wife, my daughter and a bunch of kids in the neighborhood.

There's an "imminent" threat in the nature of these statements, and a reasonableness in believing that they could occur at any time, even if he was captured first.

That's the big difference:

"In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".[30][31] Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence.[32]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

A guy can say "Death to the Jews!", call for a violent insurrection, or any other offensive thing he wants, and it is protected by the first amendment so long as there is no clear and present danger of imminent violence.

56 posted on 11/17/2018 11:33:40 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Under the “hate speech” laws, direct threats against a person, or a call for action against a person which could lead to injury, property damage or death is “actionable” by the police.

It’s all in the “details” of what was said, how it was said, and under what circumstances (drunk as opposed to sober, holding a weapon in one’s hand while making the threat - several of the last mass shootings had the perp holding weapons, etc).

There might also be some state laws that define an “imminent threat” that could be used for preemptive law enforcement action.

Brandenburg was a terrible decision on its face. Believe it was the Warren Court which did more to gut our internal security/crime laws than any other court in US history (and I’m not talking about the Miranda decision, which was reasonable).

Under Brandenburg, you literally have to wait until someone throws a firebomb into your house or car on property before they can be detained, NOT PREVENTED. Otherwise all the Antifa punks in Portland, Seattle, DC, Berkeley, would have been arrested as soon as they raised their arms with weapons in them.

This also gives the enemy the advantage of NOT being shot in the motion of throwing something, and then being classified as “unarmed”.

Time for Brandenburg to be revisited, overturned, and the laws rewritten to protect the victim, not the criminal.


57 posted on 11/18/2018 12:11:43 AM PST by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: NRx
But the calls that most disturbed Tanya Gersh consisted only of the sound of gunshots being fired.

Or have you ever heard the sound of gunshots not being fired?

Regards,

58 posted on 11/18/2018 12:17:15 AM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
Under the “hate speech” laws,

There is no such thing, except in Europe, where they jail people for saying Muhammad is a pedophile, or other statements that are part of mainstream discourse amongst conservatives here in the United States.

direct threats against a person, or a call for action against a person which could lead to injury, property damage or death is “actionable” by the police.

This is different from "hate speech," and yes, direct threats at an individual are probably going to bring you into the realm of "reasonable imminent threat," but that didn't happen here anyway. The Daily Stormer wrote no threats to her, warned readers not to threaten her, and WAPO doesn't even quote any threats directed at her. Only one quote saying that she "should" have died in the Holocaust. That's different from "I'm going to stick you in a gas chamber."

Under Brandenburg, you literally have to wait until someone throws a firebomb into your house or car on property before they can be detained, NOT PREVENTED. Otherwise all the Antifa punks in Portland, Seattle, DC, Berkeley, would have been arrested as soon as they raised their arms with weapons in them.

We have a little something called the Second Amendment. This way you can still have patriots who can go around calling for an armed insurrection against a tyrannical government who can't be legally arrested for it while at the same time having a means to defend yourself from the Commies doing the same thing outside your home or outside of a government building.

It's not smart policy to depend on the state to define what is and isn't acceptable speech, and it is definitely stupid to depend on the government to defend you from outside threats, instead expecting the government to infringe the first amendment to protect your unwillingness to utilize the second amendment.

Time for Brandenburg to be revisited, overturned, and the laws rewritten to protect the victim, not the criminal.

You don't really believe that because you are not considering what the Founding Fathers would have looked like to citizens still enamored with the musty parchments and authority of the British.

59 posted on 11/18/2018 12:21:33 AM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: NRx

If they were harassing her over anything at all, it’s not free speech. Overtly anti-Semitic harassment even moreso.


60 posted on 11/18/2018 8:24:15 AM PST by Eleutheria5 (If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson