There have been multiple incidents under different screenames over the last month or so, I’d presume all attributable to the same individual. I don’t think the issue is either the disruption of FR’s business, which might be actionable civilly, nor the pornography, though distribution to a minor is an interesting concept, rather the incitement to violence, which is specific in that it’s being addressed to identifiable screenames, thus individuals. Whether or not it’s credible or not is problematic. Successful prosecutions have occurred in very similar circumstances. If someone were to act on jude24's incitement in a short period of time, he’d be charged, which is why most “professional” racists don’t engage in incitement quite this direct. You might look at the links in post 432
Dear SJackson,
I note that your links indicate that it is a difficult area in which to prosecute. I note as well, from the ADL site, this:
"Blanket statements expressing hatred of an ethnic, racial or religious nature are protected by the First Amendment, even if those statements mention individual people and even if they cause distress in those individuals."
I think that unless specific threats were made pretty specifically, and with a high degree of credibility (two factors cited by the ADL link), the disruptor would likely skate.
I also noted that many of the forms of redress are civil in nature, few of them are criminal. As I said, I think a civil suit is probably not that tough to make out.
But I'm skeptical that any prosecutor will take the case.
sitetest