Period 11: Neo-Nazis and Free Speech

The first amendment guarantees the freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting rights of individuals to speak freely, but where do you draw the line between free speech and harassment? This question comes into play while looking at the case of Andrew Anglin and Tanya Gersh. Anglin posted Gersh’s personal information online so that internet “trolls” could contact her through emails, social media, letters, and even phone calls. Unfortunately according to a CNN article, “Most of the messages from his readers came in the form of anti-Semitic slurs. There were edited images of her face on the gates of the Nazi Auschwitz death camp. A voicemail with the sound of gunshots. There were letters sent to the home she shared with her husband and young son, who also received messages on social media.” Although most people argue that Anglin and his readers have crossed the line and should definitely face consequences, they are just exercising their right of freedom of speech. As a matter of fact, the NPR article states, “According to police, there was little that could be done at that moment because, for the most part, 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.” Even though the situation seems immoral, Anglin and his readers did not break any laws because no actual acts of violence were committed. Also, no matter how intolerable or disgusting people find Anglin’s words, they are still protected by the First Amendment. To support, CNN states, “Speech that may be abhorrent to some still constitutes free speech…” Therefore, Anglin and his readers have not done anything wrong because their words are protected. I DO NOT support any supremacist or hate groups, but I do support the idea of being able to have the freedom to express your own thoughts and opinions. Overall, Anglin and the internet “trolls” did indeed harm Gersh emotionally, but because the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, they technically do not do anything wrong.

The First Amendment states that “no laws... abridging the freedom of speech” but when does that cross the line to becoming harassment or a threat. Residents claim that Neo-Nazi’s made threats of violence and harassment and when should that ever be “protected”. They may be able to say whatever they want but when happens when they begin to target certain individuals and using things personal to them to scare or threaten them. Their statements of harassment and violence should not be protected under the First Amendment whether they are expressing what they believe are not because it is hurting the live of other individuals. Previously courts have ruled that it’s not illegal if nothing happened or is about to happen. Even though they never did anything to the residents of Whitefish they still had them in a moment or state of panic when they had found out people didn’t want them there and where saying personal things to them and even trying to ruin their businesses. Everyone has a right to the freedom of speech whether it’s verbal, written or symbolic and it’s on of the most amazing things about the united states, but when citizens start to abuse that right that's when things get tricky. Anyone could say or do anything and put a controversial tag on it and call it freedom of speech. They were targeting and focusing on a certain group of individuals of the town them being the jew of the town. It’s understandable that it’s okay they were just jokes and memes. And no one got hurt or injured. What if the jokes and memes were targeted towards a different group of people say, mentally challenged people would it be a totally different story? It also didn’t just stop at it being jokes and memes, they were organizing a rally or parade to go through the town of Whitefish. This is taking it way to far from making a funny joke to them to making it real and dangerous to the jews of the town. It changes when they are already scared because of threats on the internet but now they talk about coming into the town and seeing them face to face. The rights of the citizens outweigh the rights of the Neo-Nazis right to freedom of speech. This is because they aren’t exercising their freedom of speech they were scaring and harassing individual citizens.
Q:What if the jokes, memes, and speech were targeted towards a different group of people say, mentally challenged people would it be a totally different story?

The fact of the matter is who do not know when a threat is imminent. The definition of imminent is, “about to happen.” For example, if someone threatens you, you don’t know whether they will show up at your house at night; by then it will be too late. When the “stormers” send threats like they do, you do not know if your safe or not. For instance, when they say, “We’re going to come cremate you,” suggests that they might actually come and physically harm to Roston. Roston, the victim of this verbal abuse doesn’t know whether the nazi’s are actually going to come and burn her. Therefore, the police should take this as a serious threat, as should the courts. Also, the nazi’s said they were going to come to Whitefish, and walk the streets protesting. This represents an imminent threat because they are stating that they are going to physically come to the town in which they live. To continue, if they say they are going to hurt you and come to the town in which you live, to me that’s an imminent threat. A personal attack becomes imminent when the attacker shows any act of violence, verbally or physically towards another. How many times has someone made threats towards someone or something that we just shrugged, then tragedy struck? The answer is too many. We(humans) need to eliminate the risk of an actual attack of happening, by eliminating these verbal attacks. These attackers need to know that there will be consequences for verbally assaulting someone, whether it be a empty threat or not. The nazi’s demonstrate very impulsive threats again, when they specifically target Roston’s family, her fourteen year old son, says cnn. We can not allow for are attackers to use the right of free speech, to strike fear into people. These threats are imminent because we do not know whether they are telling the truth. Therefore, we should not risk the safety of our victims on believing this is a false threat. In conclusion, imminent should be classified as verbal abuse.
Question: Do you believe verbal abuse is imminent?Explain.
Question: Should police provide protection to those who are afraid of verbal abuse?

@kamerer
Pertaining to the first question that you asked at the bottom of your response, I think that when we define imminent there should be two different types. For example, there should be emotional and mental imminence and then physical and real imminence. Although it could not have been proven that there was physical imminence, it is undeniable that there were emotional harm and imminence by the threats. Even in one of her defense pieces, Gersh states that there was emotional distress from Anglin and his followers on her life and mindset.

@thompson I like how you brought up the "troll storm" because these incidents do not seem like "trolling" to me. Trolling someone classifies as making light of a situation but in this case he is harassing her outright and trying to defend himself. No person should be regarded as inferior, and if they are then the situation should not be taken lightly.

@williams I agree with you in that what the neo nazis said to Gersh was harassment. I like that you included a definition of the word "imminent" to support your claim. I think this is a case the government should be able to infringe on because of that definition, Gersh had no idea when the next threat was going to come, but they came in great numbers. Since this was not the first victim Anglin's "troll army" attacked and threatened, I believe this case proves a good enough reason for the federal government to get involved. Although the neo nazis did not confront Tanya or her family in person or at her house, what they did was still very destructive and should receive some sort of punishment from the government. It was essentially cyber bullying.

@sarver - To answer your question, It would end up like the case we looked at about the bank robber who sued the police because they were in his phone and thus invading his privacy, so is it worth losing the right to privacy of you devices. I agree with you stance though and I also believe that over time this is going to hurt someone mentally and physically because not only will it ruin her and you CHILD psychologically but it could lead to her wanting to end it and commit suicide. I also liked how you kept relating the topic to something familiar like school to try and make it feel more personal and easy to connect to our lives.