Meet The Lawyer Defending Neo-Nazi Trolls (HBO)

— When a neo-Nazi website called for an army of trolls
to go after a Jewish woman in Montana,
the site’s publisher, Andrew Anglin,
got sued.
It’s the first big case against alt-right trolls,
and could draw a new line between what’s considered protected free speech,
and what counts as illegal harassment.
— This was apparently a whorehouse back at one point.
And there’s a dead hooker in here someplace.
Not her body,
but the legend is this place is haunted by Rosie the dead prostitute.
But given my practice,
dead hookers are our spirit animals.
So we’re okay with that.
— Marc Randazza is best known for representing the porn industry on First Amendment issues.
— You know where that shit place we ate at the other day was?
It’s right there.
— Now he’s representing Andrew Anglin,
the founder of the neo-Nazi website, “The Daily Stormer.”
— Jews, it so happens,
are behind absolutely every problem that we face as a society.
— Anglin is a prolific troll who combines classic white supremacy with the latest teenagers’ memes.
With a series of posts,
he raised more than $150,000 for his legal defense.
— Where or not I agree with somebody’s content
is irrelevant to whether I’ll represent them.
In fact, I find I do better work when I don’t agree with them.
— So you don’t like this substance, but what do you think of his style?
— I don’t have any judgement on that.
— His trolling?
— Look, there are people who crack me up with their trolling.
You know, troll level 100.
Some of the best trolls in the business are friends of mine.
Mr. Anglin is a pretty run-of-the-mill troll when it comes to trying to troll somebody.
— Anglin jumped into the fray of a smalltown dispute in Whitefish, Montana.
A local realtor there named Tanya Gersh
had sent an email to the mother of white nationalist Richard Spencer,
urging her to condemn his views.
— Heil Trump!
Heil our people!
Heil victory!
— Anglin took Spencer’s side,
and urged his readers to participate in a troll storm against Gresh.
She got hundreds of threatening anti-semitic messages.
The Southern Poverty Law Center filed suit on Gersh’s behalf
for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and intimidation.
— This is the call to action now we see, right?
“Tanya Gersh, please call her and tell her what you think.”
“And, hey, if you’re in the area, maybe you should stop by…”
“…and tell her in person what you think of her actions.”
— Danielle Citron is scholar who literally wrote the book on digital harassment.
SPLC consulted with her on its original brief in the Anglin case.
— Gives her address.
Gives her phone number.
“You can also leave a review of her business on Google,”
“and perhaps note it’s a front for an extortion racket.”
I’m not seeing political speech here.
— Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Threats aren’t.
What about when someone uses hate speech to urge a mob of trolls to go after someone?
This lawsuit can help to answer that.
— What Mr. Anglin and what The Daily Stormer does is First Amendment protected.
— Do you think he incited a mob to harass Tanya?
— For it to be incitement,
speech has to call for imminent lawless action.
If you ask a lot of people to speak, you’re not causing imminent action.
Tanya Gersh, as far as I see it,
did not get unwillingly brought into this debate.
Don’t walk into that arena if you don’t want to get hit.
— The case comes at a time of increased concern about online harassment.
Two-thirds of American adults have seen someone harassed online.
And most American adults think law enforcement should do more about online harassment.
— What victims of online harassment are constantly told is,
“Just turn off your computer,”
which betrays this completely backwards understanding
about what social media means for us today.
We’re all connected to it all the time.
But the law hasn’t recognized that yet.
— Mary Anne Franks is a law professor at the University of Miami.
She’s helped to make state laws that curb digital harassment,
much the same way they already restrict phone harassment.
— So there is a possible future
where the potential price for criticizing the alt-right or a Nazi
is not that your life is ruined?
— Right, I think that there is a potential for a court to say,
“We are not really going to look at the rights of the worst people in society,”
“we are going to look at the rights of everybody.”
And if you go all the way back to the First Amendment itself,
and the Constitution itself,
it was not written for everybody.
That “We the people” part—
totally a lie.
We didn’t mean women.
We didn’t mean black people.
And to some extent, we still don’t.
We can’t try to whitewash the fact that this is a case about anti-semitism.
That this is a case that misogyny.
That this is a case about really trying to make the world safe for white supremacy.
The question really has to be:
Is this a just result in a good and civilized society?
— Do you think the country will be a better place if you lose this case?
— Ah, now that.
You’ve been waiting for that question all day, haven’t you?
— I just thought of it, actually.
— That’s good.
See, that’s good J-school training right there.
Wow.
I just don’t know what the unintended consequences would be.
Because this is political speech.
You know, any time you give a little bit of extra ammo to censorship,
it gets used.
So if we were to say yes in this circumstance…
I just don’t know where that where that would end.
But would the country be better off if I lose this case?
Yeah, I don’t know.

Meet The Lawyer Defending Neo-Nazi Trolls (HBO)

Latest Posts