fbpx

Daily Stormer Publisher Must Pay $14 Million to Jewish Woman He Told Readers to Harass

[additional-authors]
July 16, 2019
Andrew Anglin runs the anti-Semitic Daily Stormer website. (Wikimedia Commons)

(JTA) — The publisher of a neo-Nazi website who instructed readers to troll a Jewish real estate agent must pay the victim $14 million, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch also recommended that the court order Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer to remove all posts and photos that he used to victimize Montana resident Tanya Gersh, her husband and her 12-year-old son in 2016. The website had called on readers to unleash a “troll storm” on Gersh.

Trolling is the act of harassing people on social network.  The Daily Stormer is one of the most-read white supremacist websites in the world.

In order to take effect, Lynch’s recommendations must be approved by the U.S. District Court, the New York Post reported.

Gersh said in a statement, “This lawsuit has always been about stopping others from enduring the terror I continue to live through at the hands of a neo-Nazi and his followers. I wanted to make sure that this never happens to anyone else,” she added.

She sued Anglin after she said her family received scores of threatening and anti-Semitic messages.

The threats began after Anglin accused Gersh of trying to force out the mother of a white nationalist from the mountain resort community of Whitefish.

Anglin unsuccessfully argued that his actions were protected under the First Amendment.

Of the recommended $14 million payout, Lynch said Gersh deserves $10 million in punitive damages and $4 million for lost earnings, pain and suffering.

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

Chosen Links by Boaz – Ep 12 Wikipedia’s War on Truth: The Fight Against Bias Toward Israel

After a 3-part series on the diversity of the Jewish population, Boaz Hepner spoke to a panel of Wikipedia experts. A wide array of investigative journalists, Wikipedia editors, and more, this conversation was about the assumed role of Wikipedia’s neutrality, and how far it appears to have veered from that path. Especially when analyzed by its stance on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and Zionism.

More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.