Posted on 11/17/2018 3:00:42 PM PST by NRx
One emailer wrote: ““You are a disgusting, vile Jew … This is OUR country: you’re merely living here (for now).”
A caller said: “You should have died in the Holocaust with the rest of your people.”
But the calls that most disturbed Tanya Gersh consisted only of the sound of gunshots being fired.
The terror campaign — known as a “troll storm” — was the result of Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin’s December 2016 directive, urging hundreds of thousands of readers to harass the Jewish woman and her family, according to court filings.
Gersh sued the known neo-Nazi. On Wednesday, a Montana federal judge denied Anglin’s motion to dismiss the case, holding that speech in encouraging anti-Semitic harassment was not entitled to First Amendment protection.
The Montana mother found herself in Anglin’s crosshairs in late 2016, after Richard Spencer, a household name in the alt-right movement, gained notoriety when a video of him shouting “Hail Trump!” at a conference of nearly 300 white nationalists — and the Nazi salutes it elicited — went viral.
Spencer’s mother, Sherry Spencer, owned a ski home in the otherwise idyllic town of Whitefish, Mont. After facing local protests related to her son’s views, she reached out to Gersh, who in 2016 worked as a real estate agent, about selling the property.
Subsequently, court filings allege, Sherry Spencer decided not to sell. Months later, she published a blog post on Medium, accusing Gersh of extortion, threats and denouncing her son’s views.
The next day, Anglin called his own readers to action.
“Are y’all ready for an old fashioned Troll Storm?” Anglin wrote in a Dec. 16, 2016, post on the Daily Stormer website...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
bump
No one is carving out exceptions. This is a civil case, not criminal. IMO the First Amendment doesn't enter into it at all.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
As I noted in an earlier post, this is a civil not criminal case. The First Amendment isn't an issue. As to his specific allegations, his defense would be their truthfulness, not an imaginary right to say whatever he wishes free of financial consequences. As the the organization of the troll storm, I suspect in most states that sort of ongoing harassment and intimidation would be criminal. But that's another issue
Nonsense. Civil suits have been a feature of our court system from the beginning.
You can’t use civil statutes to restrict freedom of speech. What do you think the point of anti-SLAPP laws are?
He’s being sued for financial compensation. In federal court, there is no federal anti-Slapp statute. And no one is restriction of speech. He can say what he wants, he’s just not exempt from legal action.
Have you read your last few posts to this thread?
I remember Madonna threatening to blow up the White House.
Put her in handcuffs!
DS was not taken down by civil suits. The site was kicked off multiple registrars, etc.
Yes. If you’re suggesting I’m advocating the restriction of free speech, point it out. I’ll repeat again, this is a civil suit. Exactly who do you think should be free of criticism and legal action, other than Jewhaters? BTW, he can not only defend himself, he can countersue.
Gersh reportedly started it, by leading protests with the intent of damaging Spenser's mom's livelihood.
Spenser specifically told his followers to NOT make threats.
I think he will win on appeal, although it may be necessary to take another trip to the Supreme Court.
And if anybody digs, I think they will find a coordinated pattern of harassment against anybody daring to provide any sort of service to Stormer.
Nice equivocation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.