|
|
Post by sierranagy on Jan 31, 2018 0:11:19 GMT
@murdock
I like your idea that people have different tolerance levels and what one person may find offensive, another would not. This ties in nicely with this case as it suggests that each individual situation would require a different circumstantial ruling, meaning that this case alone would not have the ability to make a landmark decision. To address your question, should the fight for the right of Ms Gersh be stopped, it would likely be for the best. Otherwise, this case would take too much time and resources when the court is much more likely to rule in favor of free speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by Murdock on Jan 31, 2018 0:25:17 GMT
@nagy I agree with what you say in your post because although it is not common to see this, it is not completely wrong.. what i do not agree with (which i have heard multiple times throughout this whole thing) is that the threats were not credible.. I do not see how some of these were not credible especially the ones threatening Mrs. Gersh's life. I understand and agree that "gas chambers and furnaces" are not credible but when it comes to guns or other physical harm, how is that not credible? What would make these things more credible to people? The act of actually doing these things or pulling a gun out to show how serious one is??,... but at that point it is just dangerous and way too credible of an act.
|
|
|
|
Post by sierranagy on Jan 31, 2018 1:17:09 GMT
@valera
To address your question, I don’t believe that there will necessarily be more hate group outreach if they court rules in favor of Anglin, however, I do believe if they were to rule for Ms Gersh that it would open up many more instances of harassment and threat charges, even if others would not consider them to be threats. As for your first question, I have no doubt that there will be any shortage or internet free speech related cases in the upcoming years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gills on Jan 31, 2018 1:59:10 GMT
@ Henry
I feel that if groups like the insane clown poise are being labeled as terrorists then maybe the neo-Nazis should be too. The only problem with that is that at least in this case the neo-Nazis aren't committing any crimes and that was one of the main arguments for labeling the insane clown posse a terrorist group. Also, in this case forming anti-gay groups and fighting fire with fire might work but there is also the chance the hate groups could see this as attention and continue doing what they're doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gills on Jan 31, 2018 2:04:50 GMT
@ Valera
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
I feel that in the future cases like this will become much less common after a decision is made with this case. I feel that if Anglin wins actions like this may become more common because the neo-Nazis won't fear consequences for their actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by campbell on Jan 31, 2018 14:46:40 GMT
@henry I don’t think that anti-hate groups should be formed because that is just giving the hate groups what they want. The hate groups want the people to get mad and frustrated with what they have to say, so by trying to fight them shows that what they have said has been heard and has affected you. The best way to silence these hate groups is to just ignore what they have to say because the hate groups want to affect individuals. Without responding or listening to the statements it takes away the hate groups fun and purpose so they will eventually stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by campbell on Jan 31, 2018 14:46:58 GMT
@valera The way the future goes on internet free-speech cases really depends on how the court rules on this case. If Anglin wins, hate groups will continue to push their freedom of speech boundaries because they can’t be punished for it. But, if Gersh were to win then i think people would be calling the smallest form of criticism harassment. Either way, I believe cases like this will occur frequently.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBluedorn on Jan 31, 2018 16:06:51 GMT
It is not OK to harass people, it is not OK to intimidate people.” As unfortunate as it is, free speech must be protected for everyone, even radicals amd those we disagree with. When terms like harassment are introduced it creates a gray area in the law that has potential to be abused. Most countries with tyrannical governments have some form of censorship, whether it be law like in North Korea or like in Russia where dissenters "disappear". The best way to prevent corruption is to allow all forms of speech, no matter how hateful, unless that speech is used specifically to incite violence or panic. I share empathy with the woman, but allowing the government a pathway to censorship is not practical
|
|
|
|
Post by fischer on Jan 31, 2018 16:38:11 GMT
@murdock
I like what you said about harassment to one person isn't harassment to another. To answer your question i think it will end up making it to court but i think the best way to solve this is to leave it go. It may sound harsh but they're only doing this for attention and all were doing by putting this on the news is adding gas to the fire. It's getting more people involved and that's the opposite of what is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by fischer on Jan 31, 2018 16:41:53 GMT
ConferTo answer your question i would have to go along the same lines as what i said to morgan. These people just want attention. I don't think this is going to end by them talking and coming to a mutual understanding or any agreement at all. I believe that all it takes is time. One we stop giving these negative attention seekers exactly what they want (attention) this will finally simmer down and die out.
|
|
|
|
Post by valera on Jan 31, 2018 16:44:43 GMT
@gills I agree with what you said about it not being an “imminent threat”. I think that internet trolling in most cases can’t be classified as an “imminent threat” but I also agree that if the trollers had acted on their statements the outcome of the situation would be much different. The problem with deeming their comments as imminent threats is That they could refute by saying they were not being serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valera on Jan 31, 2018 16:54:46 GMT
campbellI agree with you on your prediction that Anglin will win his side of the case based on his guarantee to the 1st amendment. Although the things said were horrible and disrespectful they are still within the boundaries of the 1st amendment. Also due to the fact that the constitution is the “law of the land” I see Anglin having a stronger argument for his case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bell on Jan 31, 2018 17:21:10 GMT
@henry Your second question brings up a very good point. People always seem to think that there is not a good repercussion. If someone was to start an anti-hate group I'm sure there would be something wrong with it. People can only fight fire with fire for so long.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bell on Jan 31, 2018 17:29:41 GMT
@valera the question you stated made me sit down and think for a minute. If there was a boundary on what we can and cannot post online, do we really have freedom of speech? I am not for people sending hate messages or threats but there are ways for people to not see your profile. Things such as becoming a "Private" account can limit the amount of hate you see.
|
|
