Judge: 1st Amendment Doesn’t Shield Neo-Nazi Publisher From Lawsuit

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A federal judge’s decision to allow a lawsuit to proceed against the publisher of a neo-Nazi website is “dangerous for free speech,” the publisher’s attorney said Thursday.

Attorney Marc Randazza said he believes U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen made a legally flawed decision Wednesday in ruling the First Amendment does not shield Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin from being sued for his followers’ anti-Semitic harassment of a Jewish woman and her family in Montana.

Randazza said he can “see the allure of not wanting to rule in favor of the Nazi,” but expressed concern that the decision could be used to curtail free speech in many other forums.

“The rule needs to be the same no matter what your view is,” he said.

Christensen’s decision allows Tanya Gersh to proceed with her claims that Anglin invaded her privacy, inflicted emotional distress on her and her family and violated Montana’s anti-intimidation law by calling on his followers to unleash a “troll storm” on her, her husband and her 12-year-old son.

The judge wrote in his decision that Anglin’s “morally and factually indefensible worldview” does not disqualify him from free-speech protections — but his anti-Semitism also doesn’t give him special rights, either.

“It hardly makes sense to conclude — as Anglin contends — that Anglin’ s posts and sponsored troll storm are entitled to additional protection because of their anti-Semitic content,” Christensen wrote.

David Dinielli, the deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is representing Gersh, said Christensen’s decision upholds a recommendation by a magistrate judge.

“Today’s ruling underscores what both we and our client have said from the beginning of this case —that online campaigns of hate, threats, and intimidation have no place in a civil society, and enjoy no protection under our Constitution,” Dinielli said in a statement Wednesday.

Gersh says hundreds of people harassed and threatened her family online and by phone and mail after Anglin accused her of trying to force the mother of white nationalist Richard Spencer out of the Montana town of Whitefish in 2016.

Anglin argued the First Amendment protects his speech and that he can’t be held liable for his followers’ actions.

Gersh’s attorneys responded that the First Amendment was never meant to protect a campaign that aimed to destroy people’s lives.

Christensen said Anglin’s speech against Gersh appeared to be a matter of private concern, not public concern, and that opens him to more regulation.

Anglin’s alleged attacks against Gersh didn’t inform the public about a matter of public concern, the judge said in his ruling. Rather, based on the allegations, Anglin appears to have roused his readers’ political sympathies by drawing on their hatred and fear of Jews to advance his personal campaign against Gersh, who is not a public figure, Christensen wrote.

“Anglin did not use his speech about Gersh to raise awareness for issues consonant with the alt-right agenda,” the judge wrote in his decision. “Rather, construing the allegations in the complaint as true, Anglin exploited the prejudices widely held among his readers to specifically target one individual.”

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. This is the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Now, - having said that, how in hell does this protect Nazi filth from being spewed? What tenuous connection is this fetus looking Nazi looking for ?

  2. Avatar for leeks leeks says:

    The first amendment prohibits the government from limiting a person’s right to say something. It does not hold harmless the person who says something that causes another harm.

  3. Avatar for danf danf says:

    It does get exhausting point this out over and over again, but apparently folks are unclear on the concept. He had his free speech moment, now he is paying for the harm caused by that free speech moment. There is no protection for inciting a mob.

  4. Avatar for spin spin says:

    Always glad to see neo-Nazi’s with MEGA caps on. Every time one of these supporters of †Я☭mp is quoted this ought to be the go to photos to show what the new “master race” is/looks like.

    And btb, lots of folks on the right have really weird views on what the first amendment allows…

  5. Silly judge, only Donnie can interpret / abolish the constitution.

    Fake ruling…

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

24 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for sabatia Avatar for fgs Avatar for ghost Avatar for brooklyndweller Avatar for jdkahler Avatar for danf Avatar for lastroth Avatar for ottnott Avatar for leeks Avatar for tao Avatar for tibetancowboy Avatar for fiftygigs Avatar for slimjim33 Avatar for nishna Avatar for jeof Avatar for ljb860 Avatar for birdford Avatar for spin Avatar for kenstories Avatar for maximus Avatar for rogue_ish Avatar for drtv Avatar for atldrew

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: