|
|
Post by Williams on Jan 31, 2018 2:50:25 GMT
@martin I agree that Anglin’s actions has poor intent behind them however do you think he, himself, should be held accountable for the fear and harassment towards Gersh? Yes, he called upon his people but that's all he did. His group of “trolls” carried out the harassment and fear. So, do you believe that the simple act of encouraging this behavior among your people is a violation of the first amendment or should his group of “trolls” be the ones to blame? And if so is that still a violation of their freedom of speech or could that be considered an issue dealing with their right to assembly?
|
|
|
|
Post by Williams on Jan 31, 2018 2:58:49 GMT
@croll Although the threats against Gersh were graphic and cruel do you believe that such threats are enough reason for law enforcement to act? Does a verbal threat constitute an immediate threat or must there be physical proof of intention to carry out the threat? And if so what action should be taken against these people in order to protect Gersh?
|
|
|
|
Post by McHattie on Jan 31, 2018 3:03:54 GMT
@chechak I believe that it would be very difficult to agree on what is considered to be “crossing the line.” I say this because everyone has different views and interpretations of what is considered to be bad. For example, the neo-nazis believe that saying they are going to cremate someone isn’t that big of a deal because they obviously are not going to do that, but others may think that it is a serious threat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mchattie on Jan 31, 2018 3:11:08 GMT
@kingerski Although what they did is morally wrong, I believe that Anglin has the more compelling argument. It would be a different story if the “trolls” actually went to Gersh’s house and committed acts of violence, but they did not. Because they did no such thing nothing they did was technically illegal, therefore they do not need to be punished. Also, no matter how disgusting or cruel people find Anglin and his readers’ words, they are still protected by the first amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamerer on Jan 31, 2018 14:56:24 GMT
@bonetti I do not believe Anglin had enough reasoning to upload Gersh's information because it's not his privacy. For instance, he has no right uploading someone else personal information without their consent. This could lead to someone stalking her, or even delivering more harm to her or her family. Also, he does not have the right say those threats toward her because that to me is imminent, because you don't know if he is going to commit those actions. In conclusion, Anglin posting her information for others to see is a violation of privacy and should suffer legal consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamerer on Jan 31, 2018 15:00:09 GMT
@kingerski Gersh and Roston have a more compelling argument because it's a danger to their lives. For example, by him posting their information, saying he is going to hurt them and their families, and getting others to harass them is a danger to them and others. He has no right to say these things, no matter how strong his opinions are. Finally, Anglin should suffer legal consequences and case is not valid because it is not endangering him.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBluedorn on Jan 31, 2018 16:05:36 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 Chechak on Jan 31, 2018 16:59:54 GMT
@martin I do not think any side wins. He was threatening her but not enough for the law to do anything about it, it was his freedom of speech. But, Gersh was getting attacked verbally. Personally, I would try to do something about it if a group of people were making threats to me. The law on the other hand cannot do anything for the fact that he was not breaking laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chechak on Jan 31, 2018 17:04:12 GMT
@howell I believe if it was a different story more people would be attacking them back. But, the law is still the law and I believe that no matter who you are, it is not breaking a law. I feel the topic would be way bigger if it was a different story but if it’s not breaking a law, no matter who you are, the law won’t change for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by EllTara on Feb 21, 2020 17:46:21 GMT
Buy Cialis Hong Kong Cialis Priligy Crema <a href=http://buycialisuss.com>Buy Cialis</a> Viagra O Cialis Forum |
|
|
|
Post by KeytPaile on Feb 29, 2020 15:25:04 GMT
Propecia Ot Proscar cialis from canada Plavix Discount Vouchers <a href=https://buyciallisonline.com/#>Cialis</a> How Does Kamagra Work |
|
