terrorizing and threatening a person is not “free speech”
You’re drinking Wapo’s koolaid.
The Daily Stormer’s crime consisted of putting a public person’s name on the site (she was leading the protests against zspencer’s mother while trying to force her into selling their business and donating the money to her select people) and inviting people to give her their opinion while specifically warning against sending threats.
The threat to us is that if we urge people to contact our senator’s and a judge rules we are extremists, we will be held liable because a far leftist decides to claim that she received threats as a result without evidence whatsoever.
Ok. So we can shut down the Nation of Islam?
*****
” 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.”
Spencer is rather heavily rumored to be controlled opposition, financed by the same guy who finances the Democrats.
It has nothing to do with speech - Eric Swalwell just threatened and harassed a class of people - I don’t see judges or even the government demanding he step down, be blocked on the internet or be sued into oblivion.
Ergo - harassment as free speech is OK so long as you’re saying the right things?
That’s BS.
Don’t fall for the socialist brainwashing - what daily stormer did is what all socialists and antifa AND LGBTQ AND DEMOCRATS have been doing with impunity and legal approval for years. They just don’t want anybody opposing their ideas to do it.
Unless it’s a clear threat of violence with the immediate means to carry it out its protected Free Speech.
There is no such thing as “hate speech.” That’s a liberal fiction.
Once you start agreeing to limit speech, anything “offensive” to a leftist will be banned.
Just like gun rights. Don’t give them an inch.
‘Free speech’ was intended to allow unfettered criticism of the government, right up to the point of advocating violence. Many other kinds of speech may be and are prohibited. The idea that the original intent of the Founders was that pornography or ‘fighting words’ were covered by ‘freedom of speech’ is beyond ignorant.
And if a pro-abortion agitator says “your mother should’ve aborted you” to a pro-life advocate?
Um, I see the Washington Post left out a few key details.
For starters, the protests were organized by Gersh herself who then kindly offered to buy Spencer's property for significantly under market value.
Im sure threatening someone isn’t considered “freedom of speech” the fact that the person was a Neo-Nazi has nothing to do with it really.
The call to harass was definitely criminal.
Judges should also apply this law to harassment of un-favored political beliefs.
However, it is still legal to harass another for their political beliefs. It appears even severe harassment, threatened and actual violence against some political beliefs is still OK according to law.
Keep that in mind.
And will that judge rule the same on the anti-fa stalinists who harass and threaten people?
I wonder how the judge feels about calling for the k*lling of presidents they don’t like.
Pretty speech needs no protection.
Ugly, offensive speech does.
How does one incite people to do anything? Nobody,no matter how convincing,could convince me to do something like this.Of course communicating a treat to another,even if you have no intention to carry it out,is a crime...and *should* be a crime.I don't know if that's a factor here (I didn't read the entire piece).
Is stuff like this,even when assuming that no violence or threats of violence occurred,disgusting? Of course it is.But so is the Rat Party having officially declared those like me to be "deplorable","dregs",etc.
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.
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.
.....But Bashing Christians and discrimination against them is right on!
Or have you ever heard the sound of gunshots not being fired?
Regards,