Daily Stormer Founder says, "Troll Storm" is Free Speech, Wants Lawsuit Dismissed

[panamaican]

People were calling her house.

Sure but it sounds like this started out of some exchange where she was involved in a public protest of someone's private residence (the article isn't super clear on her role), it's kind of hard to then argue that her private residence is sacrosanct.

If she has social media and her personal address is listed or her phone number is available in the phone book or something like then it's not even like they're giving out confidential information.

And it doesn't sound like he didn't anything directly to her. He made finding her easy but it's ultimately the nutjobs who contacted her that will be responsible for their own actions.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Was any of it threatening or significantly disrupting their day? That’s where I see those “words” being guilty of harassment and not protected under free speech

 

[woodguyatl]

Sure but it sounds like this started out of some exchange where she was involved in a public protest of someone's private residence (the article isn't super clear on her role), it's kind of hard to then argue that her private residence is sacrosanct.

If she has social media and her personal address is listed or her phone number is available in the phone book or something like then it's not even like they're giving out confidential information.

And it doesn't sound like he didn't anything directly to her. He made finding her easy but it's ultimately the nutjobs who contacted her that will be responsible for their own actions.

Pan, I read somewhere that he gave out her 12 yo sons cell number and that the son received harassing calls and threats. Assuming it is true, do children received a higher level of protection than adults?

 

[panamaican]

Pan, I read somewhere that he gave out her 12 yo sons cell number and that the son received harassing calls and threats. Assuming it is true, do children received a higher level of protection than adults?

If that's true that's a different kettle of fish but I hadn't read that so it's news to me.

 

[woodguyatl]

If that's true that's a different kettle of fish but I hadn't read that so it's news to me.

This is a quote I just found on WaPo

"They also sent threatening messages to her family. One photoshopped an image of her young son to make it appear as if he was being “crushed by Nazi trucks,” and sent the image to him"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-woman-is-free-speech/?utm_term=.cbf78dfc10f4

I don't know for sure that the sons number was shared by Anglin, but I believe I read that it was.

EDIT: It seems that his twitter was shared.

 

[Higus]

Maybe a harassment angle but I think it's uphill for her (the realtor). I'd be surprised if she wins this short of him (the Daily Stormfronter) specifically telling people to threaten her and the story indicates that didn't happen.

Are there laws against inciting harassment?

 

[panamaican]

This is a quote I just found on WaPo

"They also sent threatening messages to her family. One photoshopped an image of her young son to make it appear as if he was being “crushed by Nazi trucks,” and sent the image to him"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-woman-is-free-speech/?utm_term=.cbf78dfc10f4

I don't know for sure that the sons number was shared by Anglin, but I believe I read that it was.

Just sending it to the kid's public social media page isn't the same thing as publishing the kid's personal number. I'd read about the social media. If they really published a minor's unlisted phone number for harassment then there's a different angle there.

Short of that, I think the realtor can kick rocks.

Per her civil complaint, the realtor and other members of the community contacted Mrs. Spencer's commercial tenants to warn them about a possible protest. So, she and a group of people got together to spread their message to someone's customer because she disagreed with that person's son on political issues.

Now, when The Daily Stormer organizes a bunch of people to get together and spread their message because they disagree with her on political issues, she thinks they've crossed a line? I could see if she was sitting in her house minding her own business and they targeted her out of nowhere. But not here, where she's running around intimating financial consequences to other people because she dislikes their politics.

I support companies and etc. firing and silencing speakers they disagree with but when you run to the court system and try to make the government enforce it, that's where the line has to be drawn.

 

[panamaican]

Are there laws against inciting harassment?

Sure but since she started this by getting a group of people together to go and tell Ms. Spencer's neutral paying tenants that they were going to experience a public protest simply because they were renting from the mother of Richard Spencer, I don't see how this would trigger a realistic claim of harassment.

She put herself into this exchange and all Anglin did is tell people to tell her their thoughts on her involvement in the matter. The same thing she was doing to Spencer's mom.

 

[HomerThompson]

Sure but it sounds like this started out of some exchange where she was involved in a public protest of someone's private residence (the article isn't super clear on her role), it's kind of hard to then argue that her private residence is sacrosanct.

If she has social media and her personal address is listed or her phone number is available in the phone book or something like then it's not even like they're giving out confidential information.

And it doesn't sound like he didn't anything directly to her. He made finding her easy but it's ultimately the nutjobs who contacted her that will be responsible for their own actions.

He put her kid's phone number up on The Daily Stormer.

 

[panamaican]

He put her kid's phone number up on The Daily Stormer.

Not according to the civil complaint that she filed. He put the kid's Twitter account on the site, not the phone number.

 

[HomerThompson]

Not according to the civil complaint that she filed. He put the kid's Twitter account on the site, not the phone number.

So harassing a minor's twitter is free speech? That seems crazy to me.

 

[panamaican]

So harassing a minor's twitter is free speech? That seems crazy to me.

If it's a public Twitter account then yeah.

 

[HomerThompson]

If it's a public Twitter account then yeah.

I think we should change those laws. Those people wouldn't be free to follow that kid around on the street and harass him day in, and day out.

 

[TheGreatA]

I think we should change those laws. Those people wouldn't be free to follow that kid around on the street and harass him day in, and day out.

I'm sure Twitter as a company can handle any problems with harassment internally.

If they can't, then people should switch to using a different platform.

Changing free speech laws because of some Nazi twitter trolls is a ludicrous and preposterous idea. If that standard of "inconvenience" had been a problem before, then you'd not possess free speech in the first place.

 

[woodguyatl]

Just sending it to the kid's public social media page isn't the same thing as publishing the kid's personal number. I'd read about the social media. If they really published a minor's unlisted phone number for harassment then there's a different angle there.

Short of that, I think the realtor can kick rocks.

Per her civil complaint, the realtor and other members of the community contacted Mrs. Spencer's commercial tenants to warn them about a possible protest. So, she and a group of people got together to spread their message to someone's customer because she disagreed with that person's son on political issues.

Now, when The Daily Stormer organizes a bunch of people to get together and spread their message because they disagree with her on political issues, she thinks they've crossed a line? I could see if she was sitting in her house minding her own business and they targeted her out of nowhere. But not here, where she's running around intimating financial consequences to other people because she dislikes their politics.

I support companies and etc. firing and silencing speakers they disagree with but when you run to the court system and try to make the government enforce it, that's where the line has to be drawn.

I agree. I don't have much if any sympathy for the mom but I hate when kids get dragged into things.

 

[panamaican]

I think we should change those laws. Those people wouldn't be free to follow that kid around on the street and harass him day in, and day out.

I don't know that I completely agree but I do agree that the way we handle certain things in the real world can't be perfect analogies to the digital one.

 

[HomerThompson]

I'm sure Twitter as a company can handle any problems with harassment internally.

If they can't, then people should switch to using a different platform.

Changing free speech laws because of some Nazi twitter trolls is a ludicrous and preposterous idea. If that standard of "inconvenience" had been a problem before, then you'd not possess free speech in the first place.

Harassing a minor isn't an "inconvenience", but I don't take anything you say about harassment seriously anyway.

 

[TheGreatA]

Harassing a minor isn't an "inconvenience", but I don't take anything you say about harassment seriously anyway.

It is an inconvenience if it happens on a platform that has been given all the means to regulate itself and prevent the harassment of the individuals that use it.

I know you're an ardent socialist, but not everything is required to be regulated by the state.

This forum too has done a pretty decent job shutting down alt-right "harassers", hasn't it? Didn't need to call the cops to do that, either. I don't see how Twitter is any different.

Any failure to prevent harassment reflects negatively on Twitter as a business, not on the government.

 

[HomerThompson]

It is an inconvenience if it happens on a platform that has been given all the means to regulate itself and prevent the harassment of the individuals that use it.

I know you're an ardent socialist, but not everything is required to be regulated by the state.

This forum too has done a pretty decent job shutting down alt-right "harassers", hasn't it? Didn't need to call the cops to do that, either. I don't see how Twitter is any different.

There is no anonymity on Twitter, dingus. That's a pretty significant difference. That's why I equated it to the public square.

 

[TheGreatA]

There is no anonymity on Twitter, dingus. That's a pretty significant difference. That's why I equated it to the public square.

Abusive Behavior
We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.

Context matters when evaluating for abusive behavior and determining appropriate enforcement actions. Factors we may take into consideration include, but are not limited to whether:

• the behavior is targeted at an individual or group of people;
• the report has been filed by the target of the abuse or a bystander;
• the behavior is newsworthy and in the legitimate public interest.

https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311

If Twitter cannot enforce their own rules then that is their problem, not that of the government's.