|
|
Post by Fowler on Jan 31, 2018 3:54:04 GMT
@t Donaldson
If Anglin were to lose this case, our nation is in very big trouble. My issue here is, as I've stated in class, that Anglin (as I've seen) was not the one delivering the threats or hate speech. In this case, Anglin only spread public information over an internet forum to thousands of other people, and called for his people to speak, not to terrorize. His disclaimer of "Do not threaten" clearly protects him from any accusation. Whether being morally right or wrong, this act does not break the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gray on Jan 31, 2018 4:36:46 GMT
I totally agree with you. The quotes you used were also very good in summing up the content and your stance on it. People should definitely have the fright to freedom of sleep but a line does need to be made that should not be crossed if it is harassing peoolee.“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? |
|
|
|
Post by Gray on Jan 31, 2018 4:42:52 GMT
The way they may be blue to deal with this is by setting up some sort of punishment yes as Americans we are giving he right to f The First amendment protects our freedom of speech to a certain degree and allows us to voice our own opinion and to raise awareness about topics we thing need to be talked about. But when terroristic like threats are made, personal information is leaked, and constant discrimination and hate is put forward on the behalf of others beliefs, there first amendment rights don't protect them anymore and they should be considered a menace to society. Tanya Gersh, a mother living in the small resort town in Whitefish Montana has become under fire by internet trolls and neo nazis because of her religion. Mr. Anglins, (the owner of a popular neo nazi website) is responsible for the discrimination this woman has received. He has asked his follows on his site called “The Daily Stormer” to send her hateful comments via social media and has even gone so far as to realise some of her personal information online for all to see. This goes beyond freedom of speech and the first amendment should no longer protect him. In the article on Vice its states that “At last count, Ms. Gersh has received more than 700 instances of harassment against her family as a result of Mr. Anglin’s troll storm,” says a lawsuit Gersh filed against Anglin in Montana on April 18.”. This should go beyond just freedom of speech. Because of all the harassment Mrs. Gersh now goes to trauma therapy twice a week and now is in constant fear says Vice. Why should the first amendment be aloud to enable such hate towards people? Sense she has filed her lawsuit the recent hate has died down as Mr. Anglin asked not for people to harass her. But does this end here? Mrs. Gershes whole family was at risk here, even the jewish community in Whitefish was at risk. Just as your not aloud to make threats in public places why are you aloud to make them on the internet? If you have a whole community threatening people freedom of speech should not apply. Should the internet threats be treated any differently than public ones? And how should these things be dealt with? The way these things need to be dealt with is with punishment of some sort . There definitely needs to be repercussions when people start threatening others lives. Yes, as Americans we are granted the right to freedom of speech which is great . But when it starts interfere with the lives of others that’s when lawn force meant needs to stop in to some degree . In this case harassment definitely played a part which is wrong . That’s above and beyond freedom of speech and should not be in the same category and if it’s to the point where it’s making people feel unsafe in their own home then there needs to be repercussions for that . |
|
|
|
Post by wilson on Jan 31, 2018 4:57:20 GMT
@antal I completely agree with your claim that the result of Mr. Anglin receiving no punishment for his actions could then create support for others fighting similar cases. That would then create a bigger problem because the people being tried would win more cases and we would expect to see a climb in crime rate which is the last thing this country needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilson on Jan 31, 2018 4:57:54 GMT
@tdonaldson If Anglin loses the case, freedom of speech would become limited which would mean it is not even true freedom, but will anyone really ever have true freedom? Laws are enforced and true freedom is essentially impossible in society so would anything really change? That then raises the question about what happens if Anglin wins? What does that mean for rights that protect against discrimination?
|
|
