Period 10: Neo- Nazis and Free Speech

Oh the day where having to defend white nationalist speech is something that needs to be done. I should preface this with me saying I am not defending white supremacy or any supremacist movement on the grounds of race for that matter, because it is indefensible. However, the right to have such an opinion is defensible and should be defended whether or not you agree with it. Free speech is not always something you want to hear but deplatforming someone for an unpopular opinion is just as indefensible as the indefensible opinion itself. You can not hit them with a bike lock either. From the articles it appears that Mr. Anglin is not in the wrong here but he still did harass Ms. Gersh. Anglin alleges "specifically disclaims calling for threats or harassment,” only for his audience to campaign. If you have a platform you should advocate for your audience to speak up or take action but you must also encourage them to do so appropriately and in promotion of discourse. Arguing any other way only undermines your argument and allows for moral grandstanding. Mr. Anglin is allowed to have his opinion and express it no matter how abhorrent but he is not to blame for the harassment is followers are. Montana does have an anti-intimidation law but it was not directly violated by Anglin and his opinion may be intolerable but not illegal. His advocating for a rally as long as it is within the law is no problem but as most of these rallies can turn violent easily, it is wise that it was cancelled. There could have been serious legal trouble there. Also, leave it to Richard Spencer to have some involvement in this with his mother accusing Gersh of allegedly threatening her lifestyle. Anglin’s lawyers claim that Gersh was involved in planning a protest against Sherry Spencer’s business which would be the similar grounds on expressing her opinion. Both sides have advocated for collective action. You can not have free speech that works only one way, you can only remove a “dissenting” opinion by beating it in a logical argument, no censorship, no deplatforming, and again, no bike locks. Free speech only works when everyone has it and knows how to use it. The problem here is not the opinion, it's the use. Everyone claims either “It’s free speech” or “that’s harassment”. Instead, people need to be advocating for the expression of opinions and the proper use of discourse, compiling logical arguments and promoting nonviolent academic discussion. I may have the unpopular opinion on Anglin so I hope that it is not misconstrued into me being a supremacist and I look forward to hearing everyone’s stance.

Freedom of Speech, defined as the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint has been taken way out of control in several instances. In this situation, as stated in the CNN article, “She (Gersh) told CNN earlier this year that her family endured weeks of harassment leading to her physical and emotional deterioration because of Anglin's actions.” I’m wondering to myself why wasn’t something done when it first started happening, instead of letting the problem get out of control like it has done. In addition, with Mr. Spencer he was not in wrongdoing by stating his religious beliefs, but did he enunciate or convey his beliefs to much to where it caused issues for a family? According to The NY Times, they stated that last Wednesday, a person passing by had noticed a swastika drawn on the side of a health clinic on the upper west side of Manhattan, which is a form of harassment to this situation. It is not okay to harass people because you never know what you're going to say to the wrong person or even if you do say something and that person takes it the wrong way from your intentions of it. However, where the problem lies is that people do not know when to “contain” themselves with what they have to say. In my eyes there is no difference at all between “trolling” on the internet or in person such as parading somewhere. In this situation, at this point I do not know who will win the argument but if I had to pick, it would be Gersh with the protection from harassment and intimidation.

When it comes to the people of our country, most citizens are not afraid to express what they believe in and stand up for themselves in times of controversy. In the world we live in, we have received lots of opportunities to do so. The first amendment of our United States Constitution reads that Americans have the right to express their opinions without censorship or restraint. The question that arises from the topic of discussion is, where do we draw the line when it comes to freedom of speech? Andrew Anglin and his Neo-Nazi followers are guilty of what is being called a “troll storm” against Jewish realtor and mother, Tanya Gersh. Trying to side with one person in this situation is complicated, because I am able to take both Gersh and Anglin’s views into consideration. However, the way that Anglin handled himself, his followers, and the information that they gathered leads me to believe that Gersh has a stronger argument. An article from The Guardian contained information about the way Gersh, her employers, and her family were being treated. Gersh explained, “I was told I would be driven to the brink of suicide. There were endless references to being thrown in the oven, being gassed.” Francine Roston, the rabbi of Glacier Jewish Community in Whitefish describes that she understands freedom of speech, “but imagery directed toward Jews because they're Jews relating to the Holocaust, the message there is 'we want you dead’ (NPR).” The courts have generally ruled that speech doesn't become illegal unless a threat is "imminent." In the world that we live in today, how can one be sure of what is imminent and what isn’t? The amount of tragic things that have occured in our country over these past years is terrifying-- how could one predict something like that? It is completely understandable for Gersh to be essentially fearing for her life and the lives of the people around her because we live in a scary world, and it’s better to be safe than sorry. So sure, I agree that Anglin and his followers have the freedom to say whatever they want to whomever they want. I believe in the power of using your voice to share your beliefs. But when you add the violation of privacy as well as horrific and inhumane threats towards an innocent woman and her loved ones, that’s where I have a problem.

duffy
I believe that the personal information on the Daily Storm web page was not violating her privacy. I say this because I am assuming that because she was a realtor her information was posted online. Again, I am assuming that the information posted on the Daily Storm web page was general information about her and that the followers of Anglin just presumed that she was Jewish. I say that the followers just assumed that she was Jewish because they are a group that goes around "trolling" in areas where they believe jews exist. Although the messages that they sent to Ms. Gersh were terrible, and if I were in the same situation be scared.They have the right to express themselves with the freedom of speech.

In no means am I supporting the hate that the Neo-Nazis are giving to the Jewish community, but on the grounds of if they are going against the first amendment, I would have to disagree. A CNN article wrote a quote said by the attorney that is defending the founder of the Neo-Nazi webpage, Anglin, saying that “The only thing he did was call for people to speak, but people want to draw the line for speech they don't like.” This is a statement I would have to agree with. The group is speaking their opinion that, yes, may be ridiculous comments, but are not doing any physical harm to people they are commenting towards. It becomes against the first amendment when they take that free speech and apply violence and physical harm, not by making threats that they never apply beyond a post. What I would agree with what an “imminent threat” would be was said on the NPR article, saying that “the threats were more general and vague, and the trollers weren't showing up at Roston’s or the other victims’ doors inciting imminent violence.” When the trollers start to show up and provoke violence in real life is when this imminent threat is about to be taken place, not by emails or a few phone calls. On the NYT article, it shows an example of when it does become an imminent threat, whenever a man attacked a Muslim woman at the Manhattan Dunkin’ Donuts by putting her in a headlock. If Anglins group of storm trollers would have went out provoke violence on the town of Whitefish, then they would have been not protected by the first amendment. Even though they did say they were going to armed with a Neo- Nazi march, it never did take place, therefore not becoming an imminent threat to the town. With the court case that was made against Anglin by his main target in Whitefish, Tanya Gersh, saying that it went against the anti intimidation law in their state, though it would not seem likely to be held up in court against the first amendment, which does not seem likely they will rule the group as violating the amendment. Though in the end, I do not agree with the statements Anglin and his group has said in any means against the Jewish community, but I do not agree that it was a violation against the first amendment either.

Who do you think this court case will rule in favor of? Provide explanation so I can understand your viewpoints.

Americans believe in their freedom of speech and will defend it as well as they can until they are put on the other end of the issue and then no longer will they think that it is okay. No one wants to be harassed or intimidated but no one wants to give up their freedom of speech either. There is no way to determine and draw a line between someone’s freedom of speech and harassment or intimidation because what is intimidating to someone may not be intimidating to another person. For example, a voicemail with the sounds of gunshots is considered harassment by Gersh. Although in this circumstance many people would be uncomfortable by this message, there is no actual threat in the sounds of a gunshot. I do believe that the trolls use expressions that are not protected by the First Amendment, telling someone that you are going to kill them is different from telling someone that you do not agree with their religion or even their race. The National Public Radio website says, ‘the threats were more general and vague, and the trollers weren't showing up at Roston's or the other victims' doors inciting imminent violence”. So since these trolls have the Internet to communicate to Gersh or Roston instead of showing up at their doors to tell them it makes what they are saying okay? If we did not have the Internet would this not have occured at all or if it still occurred would these people actually go to the homes of these victims and would that be enough to consider it “imminent violence” that the police need to act on the trolls? Also according to CNN, Anglin has not been found and his attorneys believe that the case should be thrown out due to the fact that he may live outside of the United States. Would it be okay to completely get rid of this case or do the people who have been bothered by this deserve to at least try in court?

“But they intend no true or actual harm, despite how Gersh may have felt about them” this is what Anglin's lawyers say when representing him about the dilemma. When it comes to the 1st amendment and our freedom of speech this is one of many problems that come with it. We can never really be completely sure what someone’s intent is. Also, how others view and read what someone is telling them. What may be innocent to one can be heart shattering to another. The courts need to curve this type of behavior based on the common “good” because the people who are getting the backlash is not the people who are saying these not only hurtful but also serious threats, but the ones who are receiving them. The free speech is directed you as a person, such as who you want to identify yourself with and as. Yet, for being able to speak of inflicting death upon someone and letting people know where they should sent these death threats to, is a whole other matter. Especially because it is stated in our constitution that every person should be granted “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” this is where we should draw the line when it violates someone’s. Also, the fact that it is directed at her religion and we have the freedom to religion without discrimination should help support her case. This case goes against every word stated there and is clearly hate against someone who does not deserve it. When people have written death threat against you and your family I would consider that threat imminent because it is written on paper and ensues death, I take that very seriously. It is one thing to say it but to back it up on paper or on the internet where everyone can see is severe. Ultimately Gersh who’s God given rights are being threatened to be taken away should triumph someone who wanted a way to counter his unacceptable actions against her.