Period 11: Neo-Nazis and Free Speech

There is a fine line between applying freedom of speech and abusing the power that this amendment gives to its citizens. Everyone has the right to say and express themselves as they please, but the controversy arises when the expression turns into threats and has malicious intent behind it. The First Amendment privilege becomes a gray area when it turns into hate and violence against other U.S. citizens. However, according to Marc Randazza, "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.” While this claim holds some truth, it is difficult to understand why Anglin is getting away with the threats he is imposing upon Gersh. He has sent her hate emails and even photoshopped pictures of her face onto Nazi Auschwitz death camp sites. On top of this harrassment, Anglin has even contacted Gersh’s 14 year old son and the line should be drawn there. It is no longer freedom of speech when a minor is being intimidated. When the culprit is saying things such as, “You should go jump in an oven," and, "We're going to come cremate you,” the threat should be taken seriously. There is no difference between these threats and if he had gone and said them in person, the only reason it is not taken as a serious threat is because it is not face to face interaction. Online “trolling” is still a form of harassment and instills fear into its victims. The First Amendment does protect speech and expression, even if it may be hateful, so it is easy to see how Anglin assumes this is okay. To him he is only sharing his beliefs, but his beliefs have threatened the lives of other citizens and that is not something that should be protected under the Constitution. Although hate speech is looked down upon, it is still allowed because of the rights that the government grants to its citizens, but that right should be taken away when lives are put into jeopardy over such beliefs and expressions. It is wrong to take away someone’s peace of mind and feeling of security because someone is maliciously attacking them.
Q: Which side do you think has the most compelling argument?

@martin, the post above involved your name and Forgot to write my own name, Sorry about that..So here it is again... I liked how you stated, " When a person feels unsafe in their own skin, that is when its gone too far." This statement represents the negative outlook on society individuals have on each other. Everyone is so fearful onto even wanting to express their race or values because people like Anglin are threatening them and their families. Anglin is allowed to say his opinion and use his freedom of speech, but, the way that Anglin has handled himself, his followers, and the evidence gained is obvious that Tanya Gersh has the much better argument. Freedom of speech all depends on how that individual chooses to use it, for some like Anglin he did not present his side very well by posing threats and harassing Gersh on the Internet.

As Americans, the phrase “freedom of speech” has become a more and more popular issue arising in terms of the difference between what is considered to be alright to say and what is considered harmful or in other words, threatening speech. Freedom of Speech means that someone's right to say something is protected within certain limits. A person may have to suffer consequences for saying some things, but that is all how that person choose to use their right of Freedom of Speech. For example, it is against the law to yell, "FIRE," in a movie theater because someone may get injured. So, the controversy is whether Andrew Anglin’s comments were considered free speech or hate speech? You are allowed to say you hate someone, but the extremity comes into action when that individual goes out of their way to say you are going to kill them or other comments. From the articles, the term “Troll storm” is constantly brought up. Anglin was displaying the same actions of harmful assault through social media that a high school student may do to bully another individual all behind their screens referred to as cyber bullying. A 'troll storm' is more than speech. It inevitably interferes with the recipient's health and with their normal daily activities. It can make some normal online activities literally impossible, but as is presented here, it will likely interfere with work, sending kids to school, etc. It seems to be personalized terrorism, as the cyber bullying is said to be like. From the CNN article, it states, “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.” More than 1 in 3 people have experienced cyberthreats online. With this as well, schools are able to look at student’s phones if they are displaying bullying acts, so why is the government not allowed to look at citizen’s phones to prevent the threatening speech from occuring? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. Year after year, there seems to be a more upsetting tragedy that occurs involving numerous shootings, threats on and offline, and the arise of these hate groups like the Neo-Nazi’s.
Q: If all these bad tragedies keep happening, why does the government not intervene into citizen’s phones in order to prevent these instances from getting too out of hand?

@sarver, to reply to your question would be to bring up another argument of constitutionality about the government being able to check citizen's phones like they were a strict parent. In order for the government to go through your personal effects to look for some sort of evidence, they would need a warrant. Without one, it would be an unlawful search and seizure and therefore unconstitutional.

The first amendment protects the right of freedom of speech however like most other protected rights the federal government is allowed to infringe upon them under extreme circumstances. Usually those extreme circumstances occur whenever someone is threatening the safety of another or the common good. Much like Andrew Anglin did when he called upon his army of “trolls” to attack realtor, Tanya Gersh, after she began trying to sell the house of Anglin’s mother. Anglin runs a website by the name of “The Daily Stormer” which is a mecca for anti-semitic hate groups. Upon Anglin calling on his “trolls”, Tanya was flooded with hundreds of anti-semitic slurs, death threats, and even threats against her husband and son(CNN). Anglin claims these acts are protected under the first amendment. However the backlash Gersh is receiving is harassment. These acts of pure hate and intimidation only lead to emotional distress and, if the threats are true, physical harm to innocent people. Anglin and his trolls are taking advantage of their first amendment right in order to inflict harm on innocent people. They have even gone so far as photoshopping Gersh and her son’s faces on Auschwitz ,the Nazi concentration camp. The federal government claims that they need imminent threat before infringing upon anyones protected right. The definition of imminent according to dictionary.com is, “likely to occur at any moment”. These threats against Gersh should be considered imminent because of the large amount and intensity of the threats for example, some trolls just leaving messages of gunshots on her voicemail(CNN). This is also not the first time Angli has released his hateful army. They have orchestrated riots and neo-nazi marches in the past which makes them that much more likely to act and follow through with their threats. Gersh told CNN, “These are not trolls. They Are terrorists,”. These people are on a mission of hate and harm and should be considered dangerous to not only Gersh, but society in general. Although Anglin claims his actions are protected under the first amendment, the harassment and emotional damage him and his trolls have inflicted on Gersh and her family have proved to threaten that safety of the Gershs and the common good.

In any situation where a person is addressing one of the first ten amendments, they tend to see each right individually. In this case, the extremist group of Neo-Nazis is claiming that the 1st amendment protects their organization’s speech and expressions. The lawyer of the leader of the group said, "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). Expressing dislike or disagreement, however, is a use of speech separate from that of threats of death or injury. While Anglin’s lawyer may argue that “ all that he [Anglin] did incite, was people expressing themselves”, the things that were being said had implications on the Jewish family and their community in Whitefish, Montana that should be protected under another amendment. Specifically, the “death threats” (NYT) that have been received by several people targeted from Anglin’s Website. While the 1st amendment does, in fact, protect the freedom of speech and expression it works together with the other amendments, including the 5th, to limit the speech that infringes the people’s life, liberty, and property. It appears as though because this is all taking place online, the people who can do something about the expressions of hate are not holding much importance to it. For instance, the police were not doing much about it because the trollers “weren't showing up at Roston's or the other victims' doors inciting imminent violence.”(NPR). These threats are no different than online threats that take place in schools over social media. If this type of speech was protected, then schools (extensions of the government) would not have to get involved in situations where online harassment took place and shut it down. Had the neo-Nazis just participated in peaceful assemblies or rallies that posed no imminent threats, this probably would not have turned into such an ordeal. Since the neo-nazis’ are expressing their hate as well as threat online it can not be determined whether or not imminent danger will result from it. Because of the unknown actions that could potentially accompany the violent and hateful threats, it should be an obvious decision in the supreme courts that online trolling/ harassment is not protected under the 1st amendment.

Q: Should the minority, in this case the neo-nazis, have so much power as to change the way the Amendments are interpreted?