Diseased The Daily Stormer - If White Nationalism wore hipster glasses

  • Apologies for the site issues. The server's shipment was delayed. I'll ask again about it and if they can't provide it I'll source another.

Is this a catastrophe of freedom of expression?

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 34.6%
  • No

    Votes: 28 18.3%
  • Take this shit to the Supreme Court! They'll sort it out!

    Votes: 21 13.7%
  • Something something private companies

    Votes: 30 19.6%
  • I don't know / I'm not sure

    Votes: 21 13.7%

  • Total voters
    153

FierceBrosnan

*unzips dick*
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
But this is literally a local/state government compelling speech.
It's more the terms of the settlement with her than the court forcing him. Still I don't like that someone can use litigation to compel/correct speech which is the problem here. He agreed to the terms so that's on him at this point.

I'm curious about how the Daily Stormer encouraged them to harass her.

You can always document facts. Kiwifarms keeps its nose clean by heavily discouraging I HAVE AUTISM PLEASE LAUGH AT ME. Because of that, we can dox whoever we please. I suspect the Daily Stormer might not be as rigorous as kiwifarms.

The nature of their encouragement of the harassment is what makes or breaks the case for me.

Were they like "go harass this nigger" or was it more subtle? And it's not a binary result either. It might range from 100% culpable to 0% to anywhere in between.

It's unconstitutional for the government to compel speech. It's not unconstitutional to willingly speak. Suicide is a crime.
I've been digging through months of Daily Stormer articles and haven't hit the call out one yet. I'm assuming it was sometime this year, I'm in October now and still nada. I could have glossed over it since every article is "lol niggers" and "gas the kikes".
 

Iwasamwillbe

Wielder of the Death Note
kiwifarms.net
... That's literally semantics. This is a matter of law and order, it just happens to be about punishing somebody for saying mean things online.
1. You know that's not the point I was getting at. Saying mean things is far too petty for reasonable prohibition via law and order.

2. So you believe people should be punished for saying mean things online?
 

Forever Sunrise

Avatar? I don't need no stinkin' avatar.
kiwifarms.net
1. You know that's not the point I was getting at. Saying mean things is far too petty for reasonable prohibition via law and order.

2. So you believe people should be punished for saying mean things online?
If it demonstrably affects the quality of another person's life and happiness? Of course. We already do that on a daily basis everywhere civilized discussion takes place, both formally and informally. If you break the rules here, for example, your posting rights can be revoked. The sole reason that isn't considered as legitimate a legal case as a situation like this is that a group of sufficiently powerful members of society haven't gotten together and written down that it is - yet. Law is not just a matter of 'this is right and this is wrong'; it is based on moral truths that are accepted by the greater society that we all live in and depend on for the functionality of civilization. It's also (ideally) a matter of setting examples, and judging intent along with reality. That's why manslaughter is legally differentiated from murder.

Look at it like this; if I curse at somebody in the street for bumping into me, that's not necessarily a crime. But if I taunt somebody who is suffering from a mental breakdown and cause them to jump off a bridge, then I can be accused of knowingly contributing to their demise. The literal exchange may in both cases be identical, but the context and results are different enough for them to be judged under differing circumstances.
 

Iwasamwillbe

Wielder of the Death Note
kiwifarms.net
Look at it like this; if I curse at somebody in the street for bumping into me, that's not necessarily a crime. But if I taunt somebody who is suffering from a mental breakdown and cause them to jump off a bridge, then I can be accused of knowingly contributing to their demise. The literal exchange may in both cases be identical, but the context and results are different enough for them to be judged under differing circumstances.
This is veering dangerously close to the rhetoric people use to say Kiwi Farms literally causes suicides via harassment.

Someone killing themselves is their own decision, practically by definition. You cannot make someone kill themselves except by physical force. If it's just taunts, it doesn't matter.
 

Marvin

Christorical Figure
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
This is veering dangerously close to the rhetoric people use to say Kiwi Farms literally causes suicides via harassment.

Someone killing themselves is their own decision, practically by definition. You cannot make someone kill themselves except by physical force. If it's just taunts, it doesn't matter.
There's a palette of tools by which society can influence the individuals that make up the society. Law is just one of them.

Like if someone in my social circle was known to be a rapist, but a conviction cannot be obtained because the evidence simply doesn't exist, that doesn't prevent people from ostracizing them socially. That's the value of the American system: sometimes things don't merit the force of law, but that doesn't mean they're not serious issues or that there's no way they can be addressed.

Look at the zoophile thread. There's a solid chance not all (or even many) of those fuckers will face legal justice. But that doesn't keep us from publicizing their greasy pervert faces.

All of their defenders going "lol no conviction, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" are exceptional individuals.

Edit: And in a less depressing direction, government enforced charity isn't the only way to help people. Private, consensual charity is huge in the US.
 
Last edited:

Iwasamwillbe

Wielder of the Death Note
kiwifarms.net
There's a palette of tools by which society can influence the individuals that make up the society. Law is just one of them.

Like if someone in my social circle was known to be a rapist, but a conviction cannot be obtained because the evidence simply doesn't exist, that doesn't prevent people from ostracizing them socially. That's the value of the American system: sometimes things don't merit the force of law, but that doesn't mean they're not serious issues or that there's no way they can be addressed.

Look at the zoophile thread. There's a solid chance not all (or even many) of those fuckers will face legal justice. But that doesn't keep us from publicizing their greasy pervert faces.

All of their defenders going "lol no conviction, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" are exceptional individuals.

Edit: And in a less depressing direction, government enforced charity isn't the only way to help people. Private, consensual charity is huge in the US.
All that is nice and good, but mainly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Nobody of real societal value will give a shit about mean posts on the internet.
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
https://dailystormer.name/fbi-called-in-to-investigate-bananas-of-hatred-on-college-campus/
It's more the terms of the settlement with her than the court forcing him. Still I don't like that someone can use litigation to compel/correct speech which is the problem here. He agreed to the terms so that's on him at this point.


I've been digging through months of Daily Stormer articles and haven't hit the call out one yet. I'm assuming it was sometime this year, I'm in October now and still nada. I could have glossed over it since every article is "lol niggers" and "gas the kikes".
The complaint cites dates and urls for the articles in question if you're looking for them.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/DUMPSON-v-Ade.pdf

What I'm not seeing is any allegations of overt threats by any of the defendants. Instead, there's stuff like this:

"The May 4, 2017 article was directed at inciting or causing interference with
Ms. Dumpson’s full and equal access to a public accommodation, and did produce such action, as
Defendants Ade and McCarty and others followed Defendant Anglin’s directions and stalked and
harassed Ms. Dumpson, thereby interfering with her access to campus. Based on Defendants
Anglin and Moonbase Holdings, LLC’s previous experiences inciting troll storms of other
individuals, they knew their actions were likely to imminently result in unlawful action and they
intended this result."

This seems to be the article referenced:
https://dailystormer.name/fbi-called-in-to-investigate-bananas-of-hatred-on-college-campus/

The only "call to action" language in the article is this:

"Be sure to send her some words of support on Facebook, and hit up the AU Student Government on Twitter.

Let her know that you fully support her struggle against bananas."

The links are in the original article.

The complaint repeatedly cites previous "troll storms" including other "troll storms" that are the subject of lawsuits involving Anglin. In those cases, Anglin explicitly called for a "troll storm" but he didn't in this article.

So the argument has to be that by calling for actions that are entirely legal, Anglin and any other defendants really meant do something illegal instead, that it was likely to cause imminent lawless action, and that it was intended to do so and, in this case, that the lawless action actually happened.

It's a colorable complaint but really requires a lot of facts to establish, which is probably why they want to peel off a defendant to testify against the other defendants. It's not impossible to prove something like this, although it's very context sensitive, and would essentially require proving that there was some kind of code talking involved. I am skeptical about the chances of success in front of a jury.

While I do think that Anglin is a butthurt manlet with a micropenis who is taking out his personal inadequacy on the world and probably has intended any illegal shit that happens as a result of his incessant baiting, I'd be really leery of any finding that just because someone is generally a bad person, that they should be found liable of statements that would otherwise be entirely legal, simply because any time he says something, no matter what it is, he really means "commit a crime," you know, just because he's a bad person.
 

Forever Sunrise

Avatar? I don't need no stinkin' avatar.
kiwifarms.net
This is veering dangerously close to the rhetoric people use to say Kiwi Farms literally causes suicides via harassment.

Someone killing themselves is their own decision, practically by definition. You cannot make someone kill themselves except by physical force. If it's just taunts, it doesn't matter.
I'm sorry but your argument just doesn't scan on any grounds besides 'I think that sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me'. This is not something that psychologists even question any longer; words and intentions do have a demonstrable effect on people's mental and physical well-being. You're just cherry-picking examples of worst-case scenarios to justify a Star Trek Prime Directive style 'we can't touch a child in a burning car because if they survive, that child might grow up to be the next Hitler!' hands-off approach that directly serves your own agenda.
 

Iwasamwillbe

Wielder of the Death Note
kiwifarms.net
I'm sorry but your argument just doesn't scan on any grounds besides 'I think that sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me'. This is not something that psychologists even question any longer; words and intentions do have a demonstrable effect on people's mental and physical well-being. You're just cherry-picking examples of worst-case scenarios to justify a Star Trek Prime Directive style 'we can't touch a child in a burning car because if they survive, that child might grow up to be the next Hitler!' hands-off approach that directly serves your own agenda.
Are you serious?

Are you real?

Do you even understand what forum you are in right now?

Words only have as much affect on one's mental and physical well being as one allows them to. You can ignore words, reply back to words, scream angrily at words, etcetera. The context and intent is what shows the appropriate response to any set of words.
 

Forever Sunrise

Avatar? I don't need no stinkin' avatar.
kiwifarms.net
Are you serious?

Are you real?

Do you even understand what forum you are in right now?

Words only have as much affect on one's mental and physical well being as one allows them to. You can ignore words, reply back to words, scream angrily at words, etcetera. The context and intent is what shows the appropriate response to any set of words.
You are entitled to hold that belief, but it has no basis in reality.
 
Tags
None