Period 10: Neo- Nazis and Free Speech

 To begin this post, I will explicitly state that I do not condone forms of hate speech targeting specific groups, especially those that include threats of violence in any way, however, I do believe that everyone has the right to verbally express their beliefs, whether or not they are favorable. To say that they, (a particular group of neo nazis in a small Montana town) “went right past free speech rights, residents say, and made credible threats of violence” is indeed questionable. How exactly does one define the term “credible threats”? Although the insults and labels thrown at the woman in this case were undeniably disrespectful and uncalled for, I, aligning my beliefs with the Supreme Court would have to say that the Neo Nazis had broken no laws in exercising their first amendment right. This ruling was drawn from Elonis v United States. In this case Elonis, after posting original rap lyrics about murdering his estranged wife, had a restraining order from his ex wife placed against him, and was called to court for what she labeled to be threats against her. After passing through lower level courts, the case made it all the way to the supreme court where they ruled 8-1 in favor of Elonis establishing for future related cases that conviction of threatening another person under 18 U. S. C. §875(c) requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten. If we were to apply this ruling to the situation in Montana, as the hate group had not so much as toed the line into the realm of physical violence and there was no other indicators that they were really going to carry through with their suggestions, they would no be considered threats and therefore were breaking no laws. Hateful speech although legal, directed at any group or individual is exceedingly unfortunate. However, as one federal judge stated, toleration may be "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country", and I would have to agree with this statement. If as nation we were to prohibit the ability of these groups to in a relatively peaceful manner express their feelings, would it not provoke them to turn to more serious actions? This would likely increase the prospect of violent outbursts rather than leaving a comment on a social media account that says “u r stupid and so is ur religion”, which although unfortunate is certainly easier to shake off than having someone show up at your door with a gun. As a country I believe that we should promote discouraging hateful speech, (yet make no law abridging against it in accordance with the first amendment), and convict no one under 18 U. S. C. §875(c) unless it is undeniably clear that a threat has been made.

Yikes. What a. What a conundrum! Do I want to sound like I’m supporting Neo-Nazis or campaigning against free speech? Decisions, decisions.

It’s an uncomfortable thought, but if saying hateful things was against the law, we’d all be in some prison complex. But how do you define hateful? Some of the messages NPR quotes (“you should go jump in an oven” and “we’re going to cremate you”) cross the border of hateful into trolly threats, and someone could jump back over that border and say, “Haha! Just a joke!” and while in this specific situation there is evidence to support it more than ‘just a joke’ — Anglin is the FOUNDER of a Neonazi website (thanks, CNN!) — how do we know some kid on reddit actually means what he says? If you go around axing the First Amendment rights of anyone who says something hateful, then what’s the point of having it? I could look at some rap lyrics and go, “Those offend me, get rid of it!” and since I, another party is upset, goodbye that rap group, because even though their First Amendment right says they’re allowed to say it, my ‘mental well being’ presides over it.

It isn’t right what Anglin is saying, no, definitely not, but everyone, at one point or another, has spewed some hateful vitriol towards another living person, likely threatening their livelihood and made some low blow. People suck, people don’t like each other, and guess what? You can do that in America, even talk publicly about how you don’t like someone, because you haven’t harmed them physically. We’ve become far too focused on how our words affect someone mentally and emotionally.

Anglin’s lawyers point out, "Even Nazi expression, no matter the psychic harm on Jewish residents, is nonetheless protected speech.” And it’s true. It’s a flaw in our legal system that we can’t really do anything for victims until something physical happens, but the law is the law. (plus it’s a bit suspect that they can’t even find Anglin, and what happens if he isn’t stateside, like CNN speculates?)

TL;DR: mean words shouldn't send you to jail.

The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” In no way am I supporting the hate of the Jewish community, but there is a difference in saying threats verses going through with them. In the National Public Radio article, it states “Roston was on the receiving end of harassing emails laced with racial slurs and frequent anti-semitic posts to her Facebook wall including memes with captions like ‘you should go jump in an oven’.” The point that Miss Mastrean brought up is if there was a difference between “trolling” online and assembling rallys. In my opinion, I believe that neither is right but there is a difference between the two. It is similar to prank calling compared to egging a house, neither are right but one is less harmful. In Roston’s case, I believe that the comments made on her page are also not going against the first amendment due to facebook being a public platform and another place to express opinions.
A rather large argument made is where is the line that is between a citizen’s freedom of speech and another citizen being harassed. The definition of harassment is “aggressive pressure or intimidation.” If this argument were to go towards the freedom of speech, the citizen posting the hate comments claiming freedom of speech, it would set such a high standard for being harrassed. According to Stopstreetharassment, 65% of women feel as if they have been harassed in some way while walking down the street. Then again if the bar of harassment is set too low then every little thing can be considered harassment. The standards of today’s society are so hard to comprehend due to how loose terms are set. In my opinion the line of harassment and freedom will never be a distinct line. It will always be around the same area of, if it is affecting the everyday life or if it was a one time event. In no way is this a right way to define such a large topic but to make it a cookie cutter design it would not include everyone.

The vague descriptions and indefinite lines drawn between constitutional rights have been discussed and debated since the inception of the original document itself. As the ambiguity of the document removes power from the government, it simultaneously grants freedom to the people. This freedom however, can be abused by the people. Some people, such as Anglin, will take advantage and push these laws to the absolute limit. The issue with the Anglin case is that the morality of it comes in conflict with the constitutionality of it. Morally, - and by social standards - Anglin is in the wrong here. However if the Constitution is the only standard here, Anglin is doing nothing wrong at all. Anglin argues that “all he is doing with his website is exercising his right to free speech” (CNN). According to Anglin’s attorney, "If you believe in freedom of expression, you have to believe in it for Nazis, Klansmen, pornographers and anybody else you might find to be objectionable” (NPR). Randazza, Anglin’s attorney, also states that “when you put tools in place to restrict speech, it can backfire later” (NPR). In short, Randazza is saying that the freedom of expression must protect even the most unpopular opinions if it is to work to its full potential. Unfortunately this is the cost of a vaguely written law system. As stated by Randazza, “this is the price of admission to a free society” (CNN). However, this price is fair when considering the potential problems that a strictly confined Constitution could hold. It is worth noting that history shows how loosely interpreted laws are much more citizen-friendly than overruling government tyranny. The ACLU states that “we should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them”. This is a fair argument and makes cases like Anglin’s seem slightly more understandable. However, it can not be forgotten that many of these laws were written much before the future implications of services and platforms - such as the Internet - were even thought of. As of now, this case does not hold enough weight to redraw the lines or redefine certain aspects of the law. However if this trend of abuse or limit-pushing continues and gets out of hand then the ambiguous lines may be subject to change according to the rapidly changing nature of society.


What do you think the future holds for potential Internet-free speech related court cases? Will actions like this become more prevalent if Anglin wins his side of the case?

@stoughton
I 100% agree with you on the fact that "Freedom of Speech" is completely subjective. As you said the purpose of it is the have a citizen ran government, but I believe this is something entirely over our reach as humans. You will never get everyone to agree mostly or mainly on one thing. People in today's age are always going to be offended some way or some how. Is there "goods" and "bads" to the protection with Freedom of Speech? I think that there is to an extent. With your response I totally agree with most of what you have to say.

@murdock to respond to your last question I believe it is very important for cases like this to be heard and tried because there are lessons to be learned and arguments that need to be voiced. Even the most simple and elementary cases provide society with answer to hopefully bring us closer to a balance of freedom, order, and equality. Without cases like Gersh and Anglin the limits to the constitution would not be tested and progress could not be made to improve or clarify the constitution.

@mcilwain

The only solution is to promote and teach people how to have respectable discourse. Even with sensitive topics such as this, the urge to call names and play victim needs to be extinguished. You can not "win" an argument with either tactic. The only way to win is to create a logical counterargument and talk it out. Everyone just wants to have the largest voice and silence the dissenting voice.