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

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

"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​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

"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]

This appears to be a civil suit, not criminal.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

This appears to be a civil suit, not criminal.

What gave you the impression that it was a criminal case?

 

[fncceo]

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;

 

[Jitss617]

This appears to be a civil suit, not criminal.

What gave you the impression that it was a criminal case?

Go away troll

 

[fncceo]

This appears to be a civil suit, not criminal.

What gave you the impression that it was a criminal case?

Go away troll

Do you not understand what trolling is? He is the OP.

 

[The Purge]

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!

 

[fncceo]

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

Barry Goldwater had no connection to the Nazis in America.

 

[Jitss617]

This appears to be a civil suit, not criminal.

What gave you the impression that it was a criminal case?

Go away troll

Do you not understand what trolling is? He is the OP.

I do

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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]

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

Barry Goldwater had no connection to the Nazis in America.

Not according to that black asshole and douchebag Don Lemon!

 

[Jitss617]

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]

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]

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?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!