Memorandum on White Supremacist Violent Extremism
White Supremacist violent extremism is ethnically and racially motivated violent extremism that drives domestic terrorism. It is characterized by a hatred of ethnic minorities, immigrants, and lone attacks, which are part of a broader movement. The prejudices against ethnic minorities are combined with anti-Islamic and anti-Semitism views. Due to technological advances and the new age, white supremacists’ violent extremism has gained a more transnational outlook spanning beyond state and national boundaries. In July 2011, Anders Breivik launched a notorious attack in Norway, claiming 77 lives (Department of Homeland Security, 2019, p. 10). His manifesto, which he had posted prior to the attack, mainly outlined the threats of replacement Muslim migrants posed to the European. Attacks that followed this incident have praised it, highlighting it as an inspiration to voicing the white supremacist grievances. The violent incidences include March 2019 attack in Christ church that killed 51 worshipers, El Paso, Tx attack at a Walmart that claimed 22 and wounded 26, and several others that the paper will highlight later (Department of Homeland Security, 2019, p. 10).
One common element in the manifestos posted prior to these attacks reflected multiple ideologies but pegged to elements of replacement of white by those of the Hispanic descent. Besides the ethnic replacement, these attackers also use Jewish people as a scapegoat to voice anti-Semitic conspiracy theories (Anti-Defamation League, 2017). Some of the cases include a gunman attack at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburg city, which killed eleven people (Department of Homeland Security, 2019, p. 10). Prior to the incident, the attacker posted messages that claimed Jewish charity was bringing invaders to kill his people. Later in April of 2019, another attacker opened fire in a Poway, Ca synagogue killing one person. A manifesto he had posted in 8chan one of the antisemitic walls highlighted similar conspiracy theories as to the previous attacker. It is already clear that the attackers post their manifestos before the attack, while others use different platforms to inspire those who hold a certain ideology to carry attacks on the American people. In preventing these violent extremists, there has been a complex system that sometimes prevents timely prevention as well as the administration of justice to the victims.
Constitutionality
One challenge that faces most of the racially instigated violence and ability to stop them in time is the question of the constitutionality of both laws used to charge defendants, procedures in lower courts, and many more.
Near v Minnesota Supreme Court verdict
The Supreme Court decision in Near V Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) gives basis and guidance on the actions that can and cannot be taken against the magazine. In this case, the statutes are as follows: an individual is guilty of a nuisance if he/she engages in regular and customary production, publishing of malicious, defamatory, and scandalous newspaper or magazine. The decision gives authorization for a suit against a magazine and can also be enjoined in future violations (JUSTIA, 1931). In such a suit, malice will be inferred based on the facts in the publication allowing the defendant to prove that their publication is true and published with good motives and will lead to a justifiable end. The next provision of the statute is that the liberty of the press is safeguarded by the due process of the fourteenth amendment from the invasion by state action. The provision limits the shutting of the magazine in our case unless the due process of the fourteenth amendment is followed to the latter; least Tori publisher files a case, which would eventually overturn the state’s decision.
The decision of the court stating in part that “restraints put prior to the speech is unconstitutional even when forbidding the publication of defamatory content.” It presents the state with a difficult choice and a negative implication since the case placed the regulation of the part of the government’s ability to intervene. The majority of the judges agreed that on the issue related to speech regulations government could not be trusted by such responsibilities, especially before the public received it. However, an exception was given by the judge, citing that prior restraints were not categorical, only allowed it if the speech was obscene, revealed military secrets, or incited violence (JUSTIA, 1931). The government was also prohibited from prohibiting negative speech if there is some truth to it. Therefore, shutting down the press also requires the government to prove that the published articles are lies and have no basis in truth.
Case laws
Issues arising from the first amendment and the constitutionality of laws and procedures used to shut down or charge the White supremacist have come under scrutiny. In the case United States of America V Robert Rundo, Aaron Eason, and Tyler Laube (C.R. 18-00759-CJC), the federal judge dismissed charges against them, citing the unconstitutionality of the act under which they were charged (Thomson, 2019). The first amendment safeguards individual liberties and provides that the congress in no circumstance make laws that breach the right of people for peaceful assembly or freedom of speech. In Terminiello V Chicago city (337 U.S. 1, 4, 1949) reads that free speech may serve its best purpose when it induces conditions such as dissatisfaction or anger against the prevailing conditions (Legal Information Institute, 1949). There are concerns about what the speech amounts to a level of going against human rights.
However, looking at the background of this specific case, it is almost similar to the current study case of Tori publishers. In the case United States of America V Robert Rundo, Aaron Eason, and Tyler Laube (C.R. 18-00759-CJC), Defendants were alleged members of “Rise above movement,” which is a white supremacist organization (United States District Court, 2019). The defendants are also alleged to have posted videos and pictures of themselves and other organization members on a hand-to-combat training. The videos were posted on the internet along with messages that supported white supremacist ideologies. Additionally, the defendants also attended three political rallies between 2016 and 2018 in California. The charges for which they were brought to court was an alleged assault in Huntington Beach and Berkeley and used social media to boast about it. Count two was using an interstate commerce facility with the intent to riot and overt acts with the intention to organize, incite, encourage, promote, and participate in a riot. The court did not consider whether the defendant committed the crimes as the matter before the court was defendants challenging the constitutionality of the act under which they were charged.
Following the sensitivity of the freedom of speech, cases such as New York V Ferber (458 US 7747, 768, 1982) placed precedence that the constitution protects individuals from overboard laws that affect freedom of speech within the first amendment. In the United States V Williams (553 U.S. 285, 292, 2008), the first amendment invalidates this law as overboard as it prohibits a substantial amount of freedom of speech. The case between the United States V Sineneng (910F.3d 461, 470, 2018) states that the exception is because overload laws are likely to chill speakers from expressing themselves (Department of Justice, 2019). Therefore, even individuals whose actions are not protected by the amendment still have a right to challenge a law as overboard.
The Anti-Riot Act constitutes two issues; the first is the utilization of facilities under interstate commerce such as T.V., Telegraph, post office, or radio with a certain intent, and a second issue is an overt act for a certain purpose. Therefore, the anti-riot act covers more than acts of violence as it criminalizes activities that precede the violence as long as the person’s actions fall under the required intent. The act could be used to shut down Tori publisher as it reaches speech and expressive conduct since it does not only criminalize the behavior of a heated riot as in its first definition but also criminalizes acts taken long before the riot such as inciting people. However, in the United States vs. Dellinger (472 F.2d 340, 359, 7th Cir.1972) found that the act implicates the First Amendment. Under clause 18 U.S. C 2102(b), defendants cannot be charged and convicted under the statute if it is mere advocacy of his ideas and beliefs. However, the double negative in the statute significantly limits this exception because even though it is not a crime to advocate ideas, it is a crime to advocate for acts of violence or assert the right to commit it.
Just like in Sinegeng, 910 F.3d, 479, the government can assert that not all speeches are protected under the first amendment act and that the speech under the Anti-riot act falls under the incitement exception to the First amendment. The government can then use the narrow exception to prohibit the magazine from violating the law. In the case, Brandenburg V Ohio (395 U.S 444,447,1969) exception to the first amendment may apply where such advocacy directly incites or produces imminent lawless actions or is likely to produce such actions. Bring the attention back to the statute, the court, in the United States of America V Robert Rundo, Aaron Eason, and Tyler Laube (C.R. 18-00759-CJC) found a problem with the act. First, the act does not have imminence requirement as it does not require advocacy to be specifically directed towards inciting lawless acts. It, therefore, eviscerates the protection of speech. If they should move to court to challenge the shutdown under similar grounds, then the act is likely to be declared unconstitutional, and the case was thrown out.
Impact
Reduced white Supremacist attacks
From 1996 to date, deaths resulting from white supremacists, including ideological and non-ideological murders, have exceeded those resulting from exterior threats. The year 2016 formed the peak with a mass shooting in an Orlando night club. White supremacist is not new in America as it dates back to the founding of the nation when in 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth in support of the confederacy and strong opposition to the end of slavery. Other incidences include the Bombing of the sixteenth street Baptist church killing four black Americans and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. I, in retaliation against the 1960s civil rights movements (Tanenbaum, 2017, p. 1). In the recent decade, White supremacists have persisted with different groups emerging and merging to form the radical right. Between the 1980S and 1990s, the groups campaigned against abortion and, most of the time, used violence to stop it.
Several doctors were killed, and many hospitals were performing it bombed. Then as it is today, these Supremacists consistently justified their actions by arguing that abortion was a sin. This might have been the main reason for their action but not the only reason—other proposed abortion as a conspiracy to eliminate the white race as it reduced the white population. Today white supremacist ideologies are universal around anti-Semitism, anti-black, anti-immigrant, Anti-muslimism, and anti-LGBTQ activities. In 1984 the now-defunct Neo-Nazi group carried robberies to fund what they termed a race war. They also killed Allan Berg, a talk show host and Jewish attorney who had threatened to smoke them out.
In another white supremacist incidence, Wade Michael Page gunned down six people and injured 4 in an attack on Sikh temple, Win cousin in 2009 (Tanenbaum, 2017, p. 1). Frazier Glenn, the Founder of the white patriot party, killed three people in two different locations (Jewish community center and Assisted living home in Kansas) in 2014(Tanenbaum, 2017, p. 2). In 2015 Dylan Roof was convicted of 33 charges and sentenced to death for hate crimes. Prior to his conviction, he attacked a bible study in Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal church, killing 9 African Americans and injuring one (Anti-defamation league, 2015, p. 2). The federal government, the State government, as well as the justice system, has the mandate to respect and protect our national values. In order to do this, the different institutions mandated with such responsibilities must prioritize civil rights issues, the civil liberties and the privacy of each American while maintaining American citizens’ trust and upholding the rule of law.
The laws dictate that committing acts of violence is a crime. However, the First Amendment protects holding or expressing views that are radical. In order to address any white supremacy issues, the government must tread carefully and ensure that the given population is not stigmatized or their rights are infringed on.
Physical and Mental Trauma to Victims
Besides murder, when attacks occur, victims and those close to the victim suffer from emotional trauma. It is, therefore, important to shut it down the press and prevent it from inciting violence or any action that is against any ethnic minority. This is evident from a court decision in the case of Dumpson V Daily Stormer and Moonbase Holdings (1:18-cv-01011-RMC). In the case of the plaintiff, the first American university African American female president was targeted on the basis of her gender and race (United States District Court, 2018). Additionally, she was also trolled, harassed, and cyberbullied online under the instructions of Andrew Anglin. Brian Andrew and Evan Ade also posted threatening messages against her causing her to fear for her life.
From the case file, the plaintiff suffered severe physical and mental trauma from the threatening statements and publication of her personal information. She was also diagnosed with Post-traumatic disorder (PTSD) due to the constant fear of her life. The actions by the defendant deprived MS. Dumpson of her rights, as enshrined in the Bias act of 1989, D.C tort law, and D.C. Human rights Act of 1977. This is because these attacks denied her equal opportunity to participate in the educational institution. Just DCHRA applied, in this case, to award the plaintiff for the damages caused, The Unruh Civil outlaws, any act that discriminates based on color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or race. News published by the press amounts to a discriminatory statement and can cause more harm to the African American population. Tori, by peddling or fermenting Hate through its anti-immigrant pieces present media that goes against the spirit of the constitution.
Failure to shut it down is likely to cause more harm besides just the impending attack. More people are likely to suffer from the opinion posts by this publisher. For example, in the Dumpson case, details on the action on the Daily stormer show that its impact was beyond Dumpson’s case. Some of the cases like an article about the engagement of Prince Harry to Meghan Markle spans thin political lines. Other articles like the one about Heyer heather published in 2017 and another about a mother advocating for regulations of knives in 2018 spanned gender segregation and used inflammatory and dehumanizing language. Cases like Obeidallah V. Anglin (S.D. Ohio No. 2:17-CV-720) and Gersh V. Anglin (D.Mont No. 2:17-CV-720) just shows the extent of damage the press is likely to cause if not shut down.
Retaliation by White Supremacist
Shutting down the press may result in other negative implications both to the minority groups but to the general public in an attempt to resist the government’s actions. History shows that some actions of the government would lead to even worse consequences. Previous studies have linked societal changes to white supremacists and right-wing violence. Demographic diversification, inclusion, empowerment, and protection of the religious, racial, and ethnic minorities in America have notably been the drivers of violence against these groups (Blessing and Roberts, 2018, P2) Perception by white supremacist that the changes are threats to white supremacy and dominance in different sectors, including power. Other violent acts are also fueled by actions by the white supremacists to recover what they view as lost gains and status within the American society.
Focusing on the Ku Klux Klan violence during the 1980S and 1990 in the south, it supports the claim that these demographic changes, whether perceived or real, can be the fuel to the violence instead of the preventive measure. It is mainly because the changes represent a cultural and a political threat to the dominant population and hence acting as a catalyst. In the past white supremacist, activities were also as a result of the expansion of African American civil rights evident in the 1960s.
The immigration act of 1965 lead to a complete overhaul of the U.S. immigration policy, coincidentally the 1964 civil rights act and 1965 voting act was also passed the same time (Blessing & Roberts, 2018, p. 3). The nation during the period observed spikes of violence by the White supremacists against African Americans in response to the aforementioned acts. Earlier in 1954, the decision in Brown v Topeka Board of Education, which helped end legal segregation and initiated the integration of U.S. schools (Blessing & Roberts, 2018, p. 4). The decision helped African Americans but, at the same time, ignited the growth of white supremacist organizations. It reaffirmed their commitment to the cause and focused their attention on communities of African descent. Just like the 1954 court decision and the civil rights act shutting down, the publisher is likely to reinforce specific conceptions of threat, including their control of the political office and negate any potential benefits it might have in securing the public.
Conclusion
Having reviewed the history of a white supremacist in America and in the European countries, it is valid to argue that they present the biggest security threat to our national security. Homeland strategic plan places and threat analysis places crimes from these groups to be higher compared to foreign terrorism. It is, therefore, the best advisory to shut down the magazine to reduce the spread of ideologies that are likely to cause violence. Additionally, in a bid to preserve the freedom of the press, the rights of individuals are also important and paramount to ensuring all Americans benefit from the constitution. Tori presents a threat, just like the previous white extremists and white extremist magazines presented in the paper under the case laws. Lastly, shutting it down must follow properly laid procedures to ensure the court does not declare the decision unconstitutional. The prosecution can seek a permanent injunction against the magazine on the grounds that it has violated Public Nuisance Law as it publishes defamatory and malicious content.
Reference
Anti-Defamation League (2015). With Hate in their heart: The State of White Supremacy in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/state-of-white-supremacy
Anti-Defamation League (2017). New Hate and Old: The Changing Face of American White Supremacy. Retrieved from https://www.adl.org/new-hate-and-old
Blessings J. and Robert E. (2018). The Rhetoric of White Supremacist Terror: Assessing the Attribution of Threat. Retrieved from https://securitypolicylaw.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Blessing_Roberts_Berlin_Report-mwedit070618.pdf
Department of Homeland Security, DHS (2019). Strategic framework for countering terrorism and targeted violence. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0920_plcy_strategic-framework-countering-terrorism-targeted-violence.pdf
Department of Justice (2019). United States V Sineneng. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2019/07/15/19-67_united_states_v._sineneng-smith_pet.pdf
JUSTIA, United States Supreme court (1931). Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/697/#704
Legal Information Institute (1949). TERMINIELLO v. CITY OF CHICAGO. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/337/1
Tanenbaum (2017). White Supremacy. Retrieved from http://diversitycentral.com/Tanenbaum-White-Supremacy-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Thompson A.C, (2019). Federal Judge Dismisses Charges Against 3 White Supremacists. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-judge-dismisses-charges-against-3-white-supremacists
United States District Court: Central District of California (2019). The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT RUNDO, ROBERT BOMAN, AARON EASON, and TYLER LAUBE. C.R. 18-00759-CJC. Retrieved from https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/USvRundoetal-DISMISSAL.pdf
United States District Court: District of Columbia (2018). TAYLOR DUMPSON, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN ANDREW ADE, EVAN JAMES MCCARTY, ANDREW ANGLIN, in his personal capacity and d/b/a DAILY STORMER, and MOONBASE HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a ANDREW ANGLIN and/or DAILY STORMER, Defendants. Case 1:18-cv-01011-RMC. Retrieved from https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2018.09.21-016-First-Amended-Complaint-Taylor.pdf