It's been awhile since we lasted checked in on the misadventures of Andrew Anglin, a Red Pill cultist who edited the now-defunct The Daily Stormer. Attorneys on behalf of the Gersch Family and Jewish residents of Whitefish, Montana sued Anglin after a Christmas-time orgy of internet terror was unleashed against them at Anglin's instigation. Like most of these self-appointed manly Alpha leaders do when threatened with the consequences of their behavior, Anglin ran away and went into hiding.
After a year of running, the Plaintiffs' attorneys filed a motion demanding that Anglin present himself for trial or accept a Summary Judgment. Anglin's attorney finally appeared and argued a few technical points that were thrown out. However, the judge did not dismiss one objection---the most important one involved in this case---that suing Anglin was an unconstitutional violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
Anglin's attorney Marc Randazza summed it up this way: "It is distasteful, but the 1st Amendment tolerates distasteful content. He has a right to express himself politically, to express himself socially, and to call people to action. If we are to reject free speech because it comes from an unorthodox group, we do violence to the very underpinnings of our liberty. Nazis are unorthodox in America; yet the rule of law must govern."
But earlier this week, Montana Attorney-General Tim Fox filed a Motion of Intervention in the case, arguing that Montana's Anti-Intimidation Law is not prohibited by the 1st Amendment. Judge Jeremiah Lynch agreed, and Anglin's Objection was dismissed. Formal trial is now set for some time around the New Year; although Anglin retains a right to appeal.
The Free Speech aspect of this case has generated considerable controversy. However, Randazza's argument has a major flaw in it. His argument would make sense if a governmental agency prohibited Anglin from speaking. But that isn't what this case is about. In this case, Anglin's words inflicted intentional harm on a specific family; and that family is seeking monetary damages for what Anglin organized and encouraged.
If a husband is accompanying his wife on a public sidewalk and some human sewer-rat accosts her with insulting language and lewd comments, the husband is well within his rights to close his opponent's mouth with his fist. The cad has a 'right to free speech' but he also has to accept the consequences of such speech. It's an old maxim in America that 'with rights come responsibilities.' This is why we have laws against libel, defamation, slander, etc.
In our egocentric and narcissistic era, many Americans do not realize that Rights are not unilateral. One person's exercise of his rights doesn't negate the rights of others. This is one of the most important---but most often overlooked---differences between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals fully believe, for example, that we all must forfeit our right to privacy in public restrooms because some tiny fringe demands the right to use whichever gender's facilities it pleases. Alt-RINOs like Anglin believe that no one has the right to personal privacy and security at the expense of his right to attack them at will.
It will be interesting to follow and see how this case develops. Anglin is also facing two other unrelated federal lawsuits.