Randazza: The Legal Battle Over Andrew Anglin Continues

December 5, 2017

An article about one of Marc Randazza’s most controversial and groundbreaking cases  – a case involving the founder of a Neo-Nazi website Andrew Anglin – was published in the December issue of the Atlantic magazine.

The article, “The Making of an American Nazi”, tells the story of the founder of The Daily Stormer: the site that is arguably the leading hate site and neo-Nazi platform on the internet. Anglin is now being sued for allegedly harassing Tanya Gersh, a Whitefish, Montana, real estate agent, and orchestrating an anti-Semitic online trolling campaign against her family.

In April, she filed a lawsuit claiming that anonymous internet trolls started bombarding her family with hateful and threatening messages after Anglin wrote a post blaming Gersh for engaging in “extortion” regarding a property sale from Sherry Spencer, whose son is another white nationalist and arguably the face of the alt-right movement. In that post, Anglin shared personal details, including photographs of Gersh’s family and other Jewish citizens of Whitefish, and called on his supporters, the “Stormer Troll Army” – to “hit ’em up.”

Currently, Gersh is suing Anglin for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of a Montana anti-intimidation statute. Marc Randazza is representing Anglin in this case. Anglin is also accused of unleashing a campaign against other Jewish residents of Whitefish, as well as “cyberstalking” and aggressive online trolling of other people, whose identity or views are not in line with his beliefs as a white nationalist.

It’s also reported that apart from committing the aforementioned activities, encouraging his followers and fellow nationalists to share his views online and participate in cyber trolling campaigns; Anglin allegedly continued to grow his audience and supposedly urged them to take their hate from the online to the real world.

Marc Randazza, the managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group, is representing Andrew Anglin. This lawsuit has attracted the attention of legal experts and the public not only due to Anglin’s notorious personality, but because it’s the first time that an internet troll is being sued for his actions.

However, according to Marc Randazza, a well-known First Amendment attorney and a fighter for free speech, restricting Anglin’s online trolling may set a dangerous precedent for the American legal system. As Mr. Randazza commented, Anglin “has every right to ask people to share their views, no matter how abhorrent those views are…this is the shitty price we have to pay for freedom.”

Newsflash: People Can’t ACTUALLY Be Douchebags!

November 23, 2009

Holy Shit! Breaking NEWS!

This just in, you guys:  a person can’t actually be a douchebag!  Breaking Freaking News!  Someone get that Drudge Report Siren up.  Done!

This is totally news to me, because until the Supreme Court of New York for New York County (phew) held differently, I really thought that when people called me a douche, they meant I was an actual, factual walking vaginal bulb syringe.  It was always so confusing.

All is made clear by this case.  Here, the principal of PR firm Four Corners Communication, Drew Kerr, registered the domain name http://www.rosstorossian.com, in order to criticize Ross Torossian, some rival douche in the sharks-and-jets world of PR, and placed a picture of a Summer’s Eve ad on the website.   In true douchebag form, Torossian got his panties in a twist and sued Kerr for defamation, among other things.

Not to be outdone in his valiant effort to be crowned king of the douches, Kerr called on his business insurance provider, Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company, to defend the suit.

[Aside:  How does this conversation go anyways?

Kerr:  Hi, I’d like to make a claim.
GAMIC:  Ok, what happened?
Kerr:  I called some guy on the internet a douche and I’d like you to pay to defend me.
GAMIC:  /facepalm

Aaaaaand scene!]

Turns out that Kerr and GAMIC’s contract contained a clause excluding from coverage “personal or advertising injury arising out of oral or written publication […] with knowledge of its falsity” and GAMIC didn’t want to defend contending that Kerr had knowledge that Torossian was not, in fact, a douchebag (despite all evidence to the contrary).  Kerr sues for breach.  The court held that because Kerr’s assertion was — wait for it — an opinion and not a provable fact, Kerr could not have knowledge of its falsity and thus GAMIC should have honored their contact.  Perhaps GAMIC and Torossian could go halfsies on a dictionary so they can look up literal falsehood.  Douches.