What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Founder of neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer should pay $14 million to victim of 'troll storm,' judge says

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,501
Reaction score
4,217
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
There are people who have stated here on U.S. Message Board that it's not a crime to be a racist or bigot. It may not generally be a violation of our criminal, although there are exceptions, it's still prohibited when the beliefs lead to action which are viewed as harassing or threatening. This is case is a very welcome case in point

A federal magistrate denounced the "particularly egregious and reprehensible nature" of Andrew Anglin's anti-Semitic intimidation of a Montana woman.
leg_web_whitefish_tgersh_dchung_ce7064db14b51b4aab6797641c920fed.fit-760w.jpeg

"I wanted to make sure that this never happens to anyone else," said Tanya Gersh, who sued the founder of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer under Montana's anti-intimidation law.Dan Chung

July 15, 2019, 6:28 PM PDT
By Alex Johnson

The founder and editor of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer should be ordered to pay more than $14 million to a Montana real estate agent against whom he organized an anti-Semitic "troll storm," a federal magistrate judge found on Monday.

The judgment was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Montana, against Andrew Anglin, who encouraged the online intimidation campaign against Tanya Gersh, a Jewish real estate agent in the Montana resort town of Whitefish, her husband and their 12-year-old son.

In an opinion that must still be approved by U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen, the magistrate judge, Jeremiah C. Lynch, recommended a default judgment against Anglin, who failed to appear for a deposition in April.

But Lynch went further than finding for Gersh on procedural grounds: He recommended that Christensen order Anglin, who is in his mid-30s, to pay $4,042,438 in compensatory damages and $10 million, the maximum under state law, in punitive damages for "the particularly egregious and reprehensible nature of Anglin's conduct."



2017: A look at the alt-right movement as it seeks mainstream recognition
June 25, 201702:15
Noting that "the atrocious conduct directed at Gersh and her family has not entirely abated," Lynch also recommended a permanent injunction ordering Anglin to remove any materials related to Gersh and her family from The Daily Stormer. As of Monday night, the materials hadn't been removed.

In 2016, under Anglin's byline, The Daily Stormer, which is considered extreme even by other white nationalist and neo-Nazi organizations, issued a call for "an old-fashioned Troll Storm" against the Gershes. The site alleged that Gersh had led a campaign of harassment against the mother of Richard Spencer, the white supremacist leader who coined the term "alt-right" and was a resident of Whitefish.

Spencer, an admirer of George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party, was widely denounced for urging his supporters to "party like it's 1933" — the year Hitler rose to power in Germany — after Donald Trump was elected president in November 2016. He later was a featured speaker at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a civil rights activist was killed and 19 other people were injured in August 2017.

Continued here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/founder-neo-nazi-site-daily-stormer-should-pay-14-million-n1030211
 
OP
NewsVine_Mariyam

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,501
Reaction score
4,217
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
"This lawsuit has always been about stopping others from enduring the terror I continue to live through at the hands of a neo-Nazi and his followers, and I wanted to make sure that this never happens to anyone else," she said.

John Morrison, an attorney for Gersh, said, "This is a big win for our client, but it also sends an important message that hateful harassment by bigots will not be tolerated in Big Sky Country."

Anglin is believed to have gone underground and couldn't be reached for comment on Monday. Last month, Anglin was ordered to pay $4.1 million after he failed to respond to a similar defamation lawsuit filed by the Muslim radio host and comedian Dean Obeidallah.​
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
36,799
Reaction score
27,103
Points
2,915
This appears to be a civil suit, not criminal.
 
OP
NewsVine_Mariyam

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,501
Reaction score
4,217
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
36,799
Reaction score
27,103
Points
2,915
There are people who have stated here on U.S. Message Board that it's not a crime to be a racist or bigot. It may not generally be a violation of our criminal, although there are exceptions

This doesn't appear to be an exception to that.

There is a criminal charge of using a telecommunications provider to harass. I can be used to make a criminal case against an online bigot. But, it is a misdemeanor charge;
 

The Purge

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
17,755
Reaction score
7,780
Points
400
But the squad says Trump is a mother fucker a Nazi, and a racist!

Rashida Tlaib on Trump: "We're going to impeach this motherfucker!"
Jan 4, 2019 · A video clip of new Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) dropping the f-bomb while calling for President Donald Trump's impeachment on ...

Nazi Comparisons From Barry Goldwater to Donald Trump | National Review
Jun 21, 2019 · On June 18th, CNN's Don Lemon once again deployed this technique and compared President Trump to the Nazi leader

House condemns Trump 'racist' tweets in extraordinary rebuke
7 hours ago · WASHINGTON (AP) — In a remarkable political repudiation, the Democratic-led U.S. House voted Tuesday night to condemn President Donald

But this is OK!
 
OP
NewsVine_Mariyam

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,501
Reaction score
4,217
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
There are people who have stated here on U.S. Message Board that it's not a crime to be a racist or bigot. It may not generally be a violation of our criminal, although there are exceptions

This doesn't appear to be an exception to that.

There is a criminal charge of using a telecommunications provider to harass. I can be used to make a criminal case against an online bigot. But, it is a misdemeanor charge;
Oh I see, I guess that was kind of confusing. What I meant is that while it's generally not a violation of the criminal code, a civil claim can be pursued and I have been advised is ofen easier to obtain since the threshold to prevail in a civil case is at least 51% ws opposed to the 98% in a criminal case.

I was thinking one thing while typing another and neglected to get back and finish my original thought. The hazards of the aging process :)
 

The Purge

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
17,755
Reaction score
7,780
Points
400

Jitss617

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
39,091
Reaction score
9,322
Points
1,340
There are people who have stated here on U.S. Message Board that it's not a crime to be a racist or bigot. It may not generally be a violation of our criminal, although there are exceptions

This doesn't appear to be an exception to that.

There is a criminal charge of using a telecommunications provider to harass. I can be used to make a criminal case against an online bigot. But, it is a misdemeanor charge;
Oh I see, I guess that was kind of confusing. What I meant is that while it's generally not a violation of the criminal code, a civil claim can be pursued and I have been advised is ofen easier to obtain since the threshold to prevail in a civil case is at least 51% ws opposed to the 98% in a criminal case.
Until we take it to the Supreme Court
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
36,799
Reaction score
27,103
Points
2,915
There are people who have stated here on U.S. Message Board that it's not a crime to be a racist or bigot. It may not generally be a violation of our criminal, although there are exceptions

This doesn't appear to be an exception to that.

There is a criminal charge of using a telecommunications provider to harass. I can be used to make a criminal case against an online bigot. But, it is a misdemeanor charge;
Oh I see, I guess that was kind of confusing. What I meant is that while it's generally not a violation of the criminal code, a civil claim can be pursued and I have been advised is ofen easier to obtain since the threshold to prevail in a civil case is at least 51% ws opposed to the 98% in a criminal case.

In a criminal case, you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases are decide on a 'balance of probability' ... in other words, if one case seems more probable than the other, it prevails.

Civil cases can win large monetary judgements. Criminal cases typically can only assess pre-determined fines or incarceration.
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
36,799
Reaction score
27,103
Points
2,915
There are people who have stated here on U.S. Message Board that it's not a crime to be a racist or bigot. It may not generally be a violation of our criminal, although there are exceptions

This doesn't appear to be an exception to that.

There is a criminal charge of using a telecommunications provider to harass. I can be used to make a criminal case against an online bigot. But, it is a misdemeanor charge;
Oh I see, I guess that was kind of confusing. What I meant is that while it's generally not a violation of the criminal code, a civil claim can be pursued and I have been advised is ofen easier to obtain since the threshold to prevail in a civil case is at least 51% ws opposed to the 98% in a criminal case.
Until we take it to the Supreme Court

Doubt if the court would hear it. It's a pretty cut and dry case and there is no reason for The Supreme Court to hear it.

Who is 'we' in this case. Are you claiming to be affiliated with the Nazi Party?
 
OP
NewsVine_Mariyam

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,501
Reaction score
4,217
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
There are people who have stated here on U.S. Message Board that it's not a crime to be a racist or bigot. It may not generally be a violation of our criminal, although there are exceptions

This doesn't appear to be an exception to that.

There is a criminal charge of using a telecommunications provider to harass. I can be used to make a criminal case against an online bigot. But, it is a misdemeanor charge;
Oh I see, I guess that was kind of confusing. What I meant is that while it's generally not a violation of the criminal code, a civil claim can be pursued and I have been advised is ofen easier to obtain since the threshold to prevail in a civil case is at least 51% ws opposed to the 98% in a criminal case.

In a criminal case, you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases are decide on a 'balance of probability ... in other words, if one case seems more probable than the other, it prevails.

Civil cases can win large monetary judgements. Criminal cases typically can only assess pre-determined fines or incarceration.
Or if you're lucky you can do both :)
 

Jitss617

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
39,091
Reaction score
9,322
Points
1,340
There are people who have stated here on U.S. Message Board that it's not a crime to be a racist or bigot. It may not generally be a violation of our criminal, although there are exceptions

This doesn't appear to be an exception to that.

There is a criminal charge of using a telecommunications provider to harass. I can be used to make a criminal case against an online bigot. But, it is a misdemeanor charge;
Oh I see, I guess that was kind of confusing. What I meant is that while it's generally not a violation of the criminal code, a civil claim can be pursued and I have been advised is ofen easier to obtain since the threshold to prevail in a civil case is at least 51% ws opposed to the 98% in a criminal case.
Until we take it to the Supreme Court

Doubt if the court would hear it. It's a pretty cut and dry case and there is no reason for The Supreme Court to hear it.

Who is 'we' in this case. Are you claiming to be affiliated with the Nazi Party?
Maybe I am maybe I’m not
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
36,799
Reaction score
27,103
Points
2,915
There are people who have stated here on U.S. Message Board that it's not a crime to be a racist or bigot. It may not generally be a violation of our criminal, although there are exceptions

This doesn't appear to be an exception to that.

There is a criminal charge of using a telecommunications provider to harass. I can be used to make a criminal case against an online bigot. But, it is a misdemeanor charge;
Oh I see, I guess that was kind of confusing. What I meant is that while it's generally not a violation of the criminal code, a civil claim can be pursued and I have been advised is ofen easier to obtain since the threshold to prevail in a civil case is at least 51% ws opposed to the 98% in a criminal case.

In a criminal case, you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases are decide on a 'balance of probability ... in other words, if one case seems more probable than the other, it prevails.

Civil cases can win large monetary judgements. Criminal cases typically can only assess pre-determined fines or incarceration.
Or if you're lucky you can do both :)

Many cases have done just that. Civil and Criminal law have different purposes.
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
36,799
Reaction score
27,103
Points
2,915
There are people who have stated here on U.S. Message Board that it's not a crime to be a racist or bigot. It may not generally be a violation of our criminal, although there are exceptions

This doesn't appear to be an exception to that.

There is a criminal charge of using a telecommunications provider to harass. I can be used to make a criminal case against an online bigot. But, it is a misdemeanor charge;
Oh I see, I guess that was kind of confusing. What I meant is that while it's generally not a violation of the criminal code, a civil claim can be pursued and I have been advised is ofen easier to obtain since the threshold to prevail in a civil case is at least 51% ws opposed to the 98% in a criminal case.
Until we take it to the Supreme Court

Doubt if the court would hear it. It's a pretty cut and dry case and there is no reason for The Supreme Court to hear it.

Who is 'we' in this case. Are you claiming to be affiliated with the Nazi Party?
Maybe I am maybe I’m not

I can see why you'd want to be coy about it. Fear of public humiliation is a powerful motive.
 

Jitss617

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
39,091
Reaction score
9,322
Points
1,340
This doesn't appear to be an exception to that.

There is a criminal charge of using a telecommunications provider to harass. I can be used to make a criminal case against an online bigot. But, it is a misdemeanor charge;
Oh I see, I guess that was kind of confusing. What I meant is that while it's generally not a violation of the criminal code, a civil claim can be pursued and I have been advised is ofen easier to obtain since the threshold to prevail in a civil case is at least 51% ws opposed to the 98% in a criminal case.
Until we take it to the Supreme Court

Doubt if the court would hear it. It's a pretty cut and dry case and there is no reason for The Supreme Court to hear it.

Who is 'we' in this case. Are you claiming to be affiliated with the Nazi Party?
Maybe I am maybe I’m not

I can see why you'd want to be coy about it. Fear of public humiliation is a powerful motive.
I fear no one!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top