White Nationalist Troll Storm Not Protected by First Amendment, Judge Rules



But muh freeze peach! I should be able to incite violence whenever I want!


Actually the 1st amendment already protected their right to free speech: they said it; nobody stopped them.
The plaintiffs showed good evidence that the defendants behavior caused them damages, so they have the RIGHT (standing) to move their court case forward.
The 1st amendment nowhere protects you from inciting a pogrom against private citizens.

Modern Deutschland banned this type of pogrom activity because it incited Krystalnacht and other such parties.


@2 unless they are fighting the glorious cause of SJWism!


Good. I trust that Anglin is one of the busiest attorneys in the country, defending scum like these people. I trust he's paid well enough that he can afford top-notch pharmaceuticals to help him sleep at night.

Eli, if you find yourself in Whitefish again this year, I'll buy you and your husband a beer. I'll be nearby for the holidays this year.


Thank you and bless you, Eli. You are the best!
Anglin and the trash he represents can just plain rot.


@2 When "in this manner" includes death threats, as it does here, what you say is correct. But as the judge suggested in her ruling, different standards apply to speech directed at private citizens and speech directed at public figures.

Granted, the line between those two classes can be blurry — especially these days, when people can largely engineer their own celebrity outside the mainstream media. If you have an Internet presence that uses your name but primarily promotes a product or service, does that make you less of a public figure than one which only promotes you as a personality? Does it matter if that presence is a standalone website vs. an Instagram or Facebook account? How many followers do you have to have on Twitter to cross the threshold of celebrityhood and become legally subject to a higher degree of scrutiny?

@5 Andrew Anglin is the publisher of the Daily Stormer, not the attorney representing him. In quoting that attorney, though, the story probably should have named him.


I pray Dog that this ruling DOES have a chilling effect on common outrage culture. People who thrive on outrage online need to be smacked down.


Threats aren't protected? Really? Sure about that?