Period 1: Neo Nazis and Free Speech

“Judging a person does not define who they are? It defines who you are?” This quote is unknown by who wrote it, but it is not unknown about what it says. For years people have been fighting to be treated equally and not to be discriminated against just because of who they are, how they looked, and how they acted. When people decide to use the first amendment rights against other people we are able to see their true colors shine. In the article produced by The National Public Radio, it says, "They went right past free speech rights, residents say, and made credible threats of violence.” This is true whenever you read what happened to a lady with the name of Tanya Gersh, she was a Jewish women who lived in Whitefish, Mont. she was harassed by a man named Andrew Anglin. Andrew put personal information out about Tanya and it only caused more problems, for example, “one call to Gersh's personal cell phone was a recording of gunfire.” When something like this happens we are able to see that this is not right and that we need to protect the people who decide to harm and make threats towards other people, this is crossing the line of what the first amendment is truly intended for. Are we really going to allow people to use their first amendment rights to put other peoples lives in harm's way? From the article Vice News, we are able to discover that, “It is not OK to harass people, it is not OK to intimidate people.” When people are harassing others because they feel like it is necessary it can end up getting dangerous and cause more harm to the person than they think. “Gersh told the Guardian that she is no longer working and attends trauma therapy twice a week.” People can destroy others lives just based on the words that they say and the actions that they take. Is this truly worth it? Even though the courts have generally ruled that speech does not become illegal until the threat has been made is imminent. This should not be the right mindset for this, so you are going to let the people suffer and have hardships just because nothing serious or life threatening has happened at that very moment. Are we not considering what happened to people like Gersh, this women has to go through her daily life struggling because nothing imminent has not happened yet. The courts need to act quicker and be more assertive and show that they are fighting for the rights of the individuals who are suffering and try to protect them any way they can. Gersh’s protection from harass and intimidation should win over what Anglin’s thinking of his entitlement to free speech. Anglin does not deserve to win after all he has put Gersh through, even though Anglin is a neo-Nazis, his beliefs and costumes should not interfere with the rights of Gersh herself. He has hurt her in so many ways and has become a burden for her family as well. Why are people wanting to hurt the lives of an individual in order to protect what they think is right?

In the town of Whitefish Montana, Jewish citizens were threatened with a Neo-Nazi “troll storm” along with personal threats and racial slurs. This was organized by Andrew Anglin, founder of the Neo-Nazi website, he called out to his “followers” and asked them to express their hatred for Jewish people. Anglin leaked personal information including the address, phone number, and social media accounts of Tanya Gersh in attempt to harass and intimidate her along with the Jewish community in which she lives. In the article from Vice it says “At last count Ms. Gersh received more than 700 instances of harassment against her family as a result of Mr. Anglins troll storm.” Anglin argues him and his fans have the right to freedom of speech. He isn’t wrong, but when the speech directly threatens, discriminates and harasses individuals not to mention a whole town a line must be drawn. We all know that our freedom of speech comes with restrictions, you can’t yell fire in a mall and cause panic, or threaten someone’s life in public, so why is it ok online? It’s not, Anglin and his followers are much in the wrong for their acts of hatred towards a Jewish community. In doing this Anglin violated Montana’s Human Rights Act which strictly prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, gender, etc. The threats were incredibly intimidating and racial, but the courts said the speech does not become illegal unless the threats are “imminent” or are likely to happen soon, and since no physical harm was done the courts are at odds with this case. Even though the much threatened “armed troll storm” did not occur the effects Anglin had on Gersh and her community are serious. Gersh said she is no longer able to work and attends trauma therapy twice a week, but it doesn’t stop there. Even Gersh’s twelve year old son and husband were harassed on social media. Anglin intentionally harassed and discriminated individuals based on race, and this surpasses any protection of free speech he had. So who’s right is protected? Anglins right to freedom of speech or Gersh’s right to protect herself from harassment and discrimination? Where does the line for online harassment need to be drawn?

@lindey's original response:
I completely agree that it crosses the line because if someone feels the need to go out of their way to feel safe like taking a firearm training class, purchasing a handgun, and buying a home security system that means the "trolling" has gone way to far and should be rightfully stopped by law enforcement because it has gone from voicing their opinion to permanently affecting the rest of their lives.

@grace's original response:
I found your proposed questions at the end of your response very intriguing because it is basically a freedom verses equality question which I found very connected to our class discussion of freedom vs order vs equality. Good connections between the class and the current event topic.

Through the first amendment to the constitution we are able to exercise our right to free speech. In Whitefish Montana there was an incident where a group called neo Nazzis led by Andrew Anglin attacked residents that were jewish and used hateful speech and even death threats. The Jewish residents believe that all of this is a violation of the first amendment which is freedom of speech. This pushed one resident, Tanya Gersh, who was getting harassed really bad to file a lawsuit claiming that the neo Nazzis violated the first amendment. In an article published by the National Public Radio it states the neo Nazzis “went right past free speech rights, residents say, and made credible threats of violence”. I would agree with the people in this case since there were awful death threats and such bad harassment. You shouldn't be aloud to discriminate as bad as giving death threats were Tanya Gersh as stated in an article by CNN says “she was haunted by the images, and feared for her and her family's life so much that they debated fleeing the state because the threats felt so real”. In an article by vice news David Dinelli states “It is not OK to harass people, it is not OK to intimidate people”. Many citizens will claim that the neo Nazzis speech was harrasing and intimidating and say that it's a violation of free speech but then the neo Nazzis claim that it was not a violation and they should be protected under the first amendment. Where will the line be drawn in this case? No one knows but it's up to the courts to decide. "The courts have generally ruled that speech doesn't become illegal unless a threat is "imminent”. I would interpret imminent as a threat that is most likely going to happen or is detrimental to a person. In this case the threat is most certainly imminent. Gersh and her family were getting multiple threats that they couldn't feel safe at all or in their own home which shows it was detrimental to their lives. I feel the courts will rule in favor of Gersh and say that anglin and the neo Nazzis overstepped the line of free speech with all their threats ruining lives and making people feel very unsafe.

In regards to Ms. Mastrean's 5th possible point of discussion, I believe that Gersh’s protection from harassment/intimidation “wins” in this case. The most relevant case Ms. Gersh has against Mr. Anglin would be his wrongdoing of “intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of Montana’s Anti-Intimidation Act.” Southern Poverty Law Center co-counsel John Morrison says it well when he claims, “[Anglin’s actions are] not free speech, this is nothing protected by the First Amendment, this is not the expression of political opinion. The purpose of this is to damage these people, the purpose of this is to cause them fear and emotional harm, and that’s illegal.” Anglin’s lawyers downplay their client’s antics when they state, “Even Nazi expression, no matter the psychic harm on Jewish residents, is nonetheless protected speech.” But, Anglin’s misdeeds go far beyond just “speech.” According to the CNN article, Anglin and his online companions used anti-Semitic slurs, edited images of Ms. Gersh’s face on the gates of the Nazi Auschwitz death camp, and left voicemails with the sound of gunshots. I agree with the statement of the Glacier Jewish Community rabbi, Francine Roston, when she says, “I understand free speech, but imagery directed toward Jews because they’re Jews relating to the Holocaust, the message there is ‘we want you dead.’” The wrongdoers even sent messages to Ms. Gersh’s family members on social media, and called for an armed neo-Nazi march through the streets of Whitefish. A First-Amendment attorney claimed that “this is the price of admission to a free society, even if you find Mr. Anglin’s views abhorrent.” I hope that our society holds themselves to a higher standard than Mr. Anglin’s conduct towards Ms. Gersh, and I believe the price of his actions should result in some form of penalty. For the reasons I have listed above, I believe that Mr. Anglin’s actions are clearly uncalled for and that Ms. Gersh is entitled to protection from harassment and intimidation by law. If those that carry out the law in our country do not punish Mr. Anglin for his actions, this case will serve as a benchmark that other trouble-making individuals will point to when seeking their own protection from lawsuits.