MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

It Begins! Montana Man Being Prosecuted for 'Hate Speech' and Holocaust Denial

Well, this is terrifying.

Craig Sunter (CJS64)/FlickrCraig Sunter (CJS64)/FlickrVia Volokh Conspiracy, a disturbing criminal case out of Montana, where Flathead County resident David Lenio, 28, is being prosecuted for making disparaging remarks about Jews on Twitter and denying that the Holocaust happened. 

Say what? While this sort of prosecution is common in parts of Europe, Americans enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, which contains no exception for what's colloquially known as "hate speech." The only permitted exceptions to free speech protections—as the Supreme Court recently re-articulated—are for obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and "speech integral to criminal conduct." 

As Eugene Volokh explains, defamation law is generally "limited to false factual assertions. It requires a showing that the speaker knows the statement is false, and isn’t just mistaken (reasonably or not). And it requires a statement about a particular person." 

But under Montana's ridiculously broad defamation statute, "defamatory matter is anything that exposes a person or a group, class, or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace in society or injury to the person’s or its business or occupation." And anyone who "communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed commits the offense of criminal defamation."

Here's a sample of the kind of things Lenio has been arrested for tweeting:

USA needs a Hitler to rise to power and fix our #economy and i’m about ready to give my life to the cause or just shoot a bunch of #kikes …

I hope someone goes on a massive killing spree in kalispell school because I'm so poor I can't afford housing and don't care about your kids.

Now that the holocaust has been proven to be a lie beyond a reasonable doubt, it is now time to hunt the Nazi hunters.

#Copenhagen It’s important to note that jews hate free speech & are known bullsh-ters, could be #falseFlag

Reasonable people may disagree on whether Lenio's assertion that he's going to shoot people constitutes a "true threat." (U.S. courts have recently been grappling with something similar in a case involving Facebook statements, although in that case the potential threats were directed at specific individuals.) But it's clear that if any illegal speech is at play here, it's the suggestion that Lenio might commit violence, right?

The Flathead County prosecutor's office, however, is charging Lenio not just for "intimidation" but also, independently, under the state's defamation statute. It argues that Lenio made defamatory statements about Jews by suggesting that they have degraded the economy and dislike free speech and by stating that the Holocaust was a lie.

Lenio's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the charges on grounds that the statutes were unconstitutionally overbroad.* The state argued in response that "Lenio does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that (the defamation law) is facially overbroad because it is not limited to cases against individuals or small groups of people" and he "does not establish how the statute reaches protected speech in a substantial number of cases."

Can we pause a second there? According to Montana proseutors, it's unimaginable how a law against voicing any negative opinion about any group of people could infringe on free speech in a substantial way. 

This is not defamation as it's commonly understood. This is, as Volokh states, "that extraordinarily rare thing: an American prosecution for "hate speech." There's just one tiny problem: "The First Amendment doesn’t allow that."

While Volokh doesn't think the Montana defamation law is unconstitutional per se, its prohibition on injurious statements about groups, classes, or associations must be "limited to relatively small groups, such as...four officers of a corporation, or twenty-five employees in a particular job category," he writes.

But the Montana prosecutor disagrees; statements that injure the reputation of Jews as a class (or presumably Muslims, blacks, gays, men, police officers, law professors, Republicans, or any other such group as a class), the prosecutor reasons, are also covered by the statute.

If I lived in Montana as I typed something like "police officers are bullies," "librarians have six toes apiece," or "Montana government officials hate free speech," I could apparently be charged with criminal defamation. That's terrifying. And certainly unconstitutional?

Volokh points out that the Supreme Court did hold, in 1952, that "group libel" is constitutionally unprotected; yet since then, the Court and legal scholars have routinely rejected this opinion. Prevailing case law now holds that disrespectful, hateful, or "reputation-injuring" opinions—such as Lenio's assertion that Jews "hate free speech"—cannot be punished as defamation, which is reserved for false factual assertions. What's more, even false factual assertions cannot be considered defamatory unless the speaker knows they are false. And even deliberate falsehoods about historical matters (like the Holocaust) or economic and social issues (including the alleged behavior or characteristics of a large racial, religious, political, etc. group) are constitutionally protected as well. 

The most recent ruling in this regard was United States v. Alvarez (2012), where judges opined that "laws restricting false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and other matters of public concern" would "present a grave and unacceptable danger of suppressing truthful speech." This does not mean that "there is no such thing as truth or falsity in these areas or that the truth is always impossible to ascertain," they state, "but rather that it is perilous to permit the state to be the arbiter of truth."

* I previously stated that a district judge had rejected Lenio's motion to dismiss, which is incorrect. Lenio's lawyer has until June 10th to reply to the state's response, after which the court will rule. 

Photo Credit: Craig Sunter (CJS64)/Flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • WTF||

    It will no doubt get slapped down at some point by the courts, but as usual the process is the punishment.

  • Dweebston||

    This.

    Hold prosecutors accountable for overcharging, and this nonsense disappears overnight.

  • ||

    ^this

  • Butler||

    And impeach the legislators who violated their oaths of office? It is just pathetic how we have all decided that nothing is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so, and there's no punishment for doing something unconstitutional, even when clearly so, until the Supreme Court specifically tells officials to stop doing it (and even then, there's no real accountability).

    Like he said, the process is the punishment.

  • PigeonCider||

    Volokh will have civil action at his disposal at the end of the process.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mike_nifong#sued_by_players

    Not to mention a host of other things, such as reporting the prosecutor to the ethics board. Volokh will have plenty of opportunity to use 'process as a punishment' for his own gains once the ball is in his court.

    I'm not sure what else can be gained by involving more government in the situation.

  • some guy||

    FYI, Volokh is the site that reported it. The suspect/victim is named David Lenio.

  • EndTheGOP||

    Dweeb -- The attorneys in the country have taken control of 'we the people' and are holding all of us hostage. They make the laws, prosecute, defend, do the judging and control all of us. Do you really think they will ever allow tort reform much less actually "Hold prosecutors accountable for overcharging"?

    IT"S ALL OVER FOLKS! And the socialist attorneys have won.

  • perlchpr||

    This would certainly be an excellent start.

    We're all required to know every fucking scrap of regulation any government employee shits out, why in the ever loving fuck shouldn't the people who actually get to use the machine of state for violence be required to as well?

  • Quixote||

    The process is indeed the punishment, as it should be. Ms. Brown does not deny that libel can be criminalized without posing any "free speech" problem. She cites Alvarez, but she neglects our nation's leading criminal satire case, documented at:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    There, the New York Court of Appeals held, over the "First Amendment" dissent of one judge, that a form of speech that we really don't like like—excessively deadpan parody that crosses the line—can be criminalized on the grounds that its author intended to harm a reputation, rather than cause "momentary discomfort and embarrassment." Here, we have speech that does just that, to an entire group of people. Volokh can make little distinctions, but he himself has energetically supported the logic of the New York Court of Appeals' decision. Thus, the real question is: when are we going to take the steps that need to be taken to recriminalize libel throughout the United States?

  • retiredfire||

    Go away!
    It is not satire to claim to be someone you aren't and then make false statements that make that person look bad.
    The argument that "I was only joking" doesn't cut it.

  • Quixote||

    Exactly! This is why would-be parodists are now required to overtly declare their mockery to be satirical, or at least to make it crystal clear that they are satirical. (Remember, a parody is a satirical imitation.) If your intent is unclear, you risk going to jail.

    For example, in the criminal satire case I've linked above, the defendant sent out emails in which he portrayed a well-connected academic department chairman as confessing to plagiarism and as justifying his conduct as follows: "If I had given credit to this man, I would have been banned from conferences around the world."

    It is hard to see anything satirical at all in such an outrageous admission, sent from a "Gmail" address opened in a professor's "name." Furthermore, not only is the claimed parody unclear, but it crosses the line and becomes a crime because the intent is clearly to harm a reputation, and not to cause "momentary discomfort or embarrassment," which, as Albany explained, would not be a crime.

    What this means, is that Internet thugs who send out inappropriately deadpan admissions in the "names" of university presidents and other academics are now on notice that the burden is on them to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that their intent was satirical. And if they can't prove it, they won't be paying little fines like people do in Europe when they commit libel; no, we have better punishments waiting for them here in our excellent American prisons.

  • Quixote||

    P.s. Somebody here is telling me they can see a satirical "intent" in the statement:

    "If I had given credit to this man, I would have been banned from conferences around the world."

    But that there idea misses the point. The statement was sent in an email that made it look like it was coming from "someone you aren't," and it made that person look bad. We don't need any "First Amendment" baloney to recognize that was a crime.

  • Jay Dubya||

    stop spamming your blog here no one gives a shit.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    the process is the punishment.

    28A- The SCOTUS/State judicial branches shall review all laws for constitutionality prior to passage. The author of any bill deemed unconstitutional shall be drawn and quartered in the public square.

  • Charles Easterly||

    I think the man is a horrid individual, yet I don't think arresting him for evil statements sets a good precedent.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    USA needs a Hitler to rise to power and fix our #economy...

    Lenio should probably google "mefo bills". And this case should be the end of Montana's defamation statute as it's being applied.

  • ||

    And google Hjalmar Schacht as well.

  • albo||

    If everybody would just agree on everything then we wouldn't need these laws. C'mon, people, get with the doubleplus goodthink

  • Paul.||

    "limited to false factual assertions. It requires a showing that the speaker knows the statement is false, and isn’t just mistaken (reasonably or not). And it requires a statement about a particular person."

    So everything coming out of Sulkowicz's mouth would be defamation.

  • Free Society||

    But she's so brave

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    This is going to get destroyed by whatever court it goes to since there's massive amounts of case law saying this is protected speech.

  • Sudden||

    As WTF says, the process is the punishment.

  • rudehost||

    My fear is that at some point we get a 5-4 SCOTUS decision supporting one of these kinds of laws. Sadly I think it will happen. Now that the left feels ascendant they are coming after free speech. Championing free speech was tactical on their part. They only wanted to protect it to ensure they were not silenced when they felt they were in the minority. Today they see an opportunity to silence their opponents and they will try to seize that opportunity. They will use guys like this as their justification but speech codes will creep and spread.

  • R C Dean||

    anything that exposes a person or a group, class, or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace in society

    So, if I were to say "Republicans are a bunch of big old meanies who want to poison the water, starve children, and put blacks back in chains", I'm looking at a criminal defamation complaint?

    Interesting.

  • Paul.||

    Yep. 100% unassailable logic.

  • sarcasmic||

    Of course not. Republicans are intolerant, so they don't count.

  • Dweebston||

    "Should R C Dean reasonably know that Republicans do not, in fact, want to put blacks in chains? Do we even know that's false?"

  • Tony||

    But you'd never say that. Those poor beleaguered Republicans. Won't anyone besides creepy billionaires and environment- and economy-destroying industries ever give them a break?

  • Dweebston||

    Slander! Or is it libel? I always forget.

    Defamation!

  • ||

    "But you'd never say that."

    Way to miss the point!

  • EV||

    Tony, who let you back in the house?

  • Sudden||

    I keep forgetting that republicans are nothing but the bad guys from those old Captain Planet cartoons.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    You think praising a socialist should be illegal, tony?

  • XM||

    Creepy billionaires and environment- and economy-destroying industries = progressive strongholds.

    The rape infested colleges, wall street, banks, hollywood, even oil companies are all pretty much ran by registered democrats.

    Sorry.

  • DesigNate||

    How did I know you'd show up to present your mealy mouthed approval of this?

  • EMD||

    Joe Biden, is that you?

  • EMD||

    Joe Biden, is that you?

  • Sevo||

    No, no.

  • Mattnad||

    Defamation requires the statements to be untrue. I see nothing in your comment about republicans that meets that test.

  • Tionico||

    nope. But if you alledge that about democrats, oh, different story. laissez les bontemps roullez........ il'y a un fete ce soir. WHY? Because if you said it about dems it would be true, but yet defamatory. Why defamotory? They'd whinge and cringe and whimper "not play nice, I go home"

  • Sevo||

    I have a hard time imagining a prosecutor so ignorant of the Constitution that he'd bother to spend time on this.
    Is the guy up for re-election after being caught with his hand in the cookie jar?

  • ||

    Oh, the prosecutor knows. He's just grandstanding, looking towards electability.

  • EMD||

    If he's counting on the Montana Jewish vote, maybe he's in trouble?

  • Paul.||

    USA needs a Hitler to rise to power and fix our #economy and i’m about ready to give my life to the cause or just shoot a bunch of #kikes …

    So endless stimulus and constant engagement in military adventures...

    If he accepts that ISIS are also semetic peoples, then he could say we've got all three.

  • ||

    My stomach feels vaguely quea....[whorf]

  • Mindyourbusiness||

    alimentary, my dear Monty...

  • Swiss Servator, Nierezeit!||

    Stop importing Salon!

  • GILMORE||

    Well if you espouse it so much, why don't you just marry it.

  • Sudden||

    Not until everyone can marry the one they love.

  • ||

    E-spouse?

    Is this another of those robotic sex partner threads?

  • EndTheGOP||

    Monty -- Speak for yourself asshole.

    Any person should be allowed to hold whatever fucking views they want!

    FUCK OFF MONTANA!!

  • Paul.||

    A Montana district court this week rejected Lenio's motion to dismiss the charges on grounds that the statutes were unconstitutionally overbroad.

    I have to wonder aloud... is Lenio's lawyer Jewish?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Make sure they are male, too. You know...chicks and stuff.

  • Paul.||

    "Sheldon? Sheldon? A Sheldon will do your taxes. Need a root canal? Sheldon's your man..."

  • Mainer2||

    Abe Lincoln....I didn't know Lincoln was Jewish.

  • C. Anacreon||

    "I need a Jew....."

    /Peter Griffin

  • Sudden||

    I saw a meme on instagram a few days ago that said something along the lines of "If the Egyptians could build the pyramids thousands of years ago without modern tools, you can build a business."

    My first thought was that both require an army of jews.

  • Nanny||

    Will I be arrested in Montana if I point out that the Jews had absolutely no part in building the pyramids? After all I'm disparaging their collective pyramid building skills.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    The real question is:
    What are they really pissed about?
    Whose dog did he kick?

  • From the Tundra||

    What would happen if you were to simply ignore assholes like this?

    Nah, too simple.

  • Paul.||

    ... Oh, you're talking about the 'Off' button. Yes, yes, I've heard of this ancient lost technology. While it's an interesting concept and there is some indirect evidence suggesting its existence, it's never been directly proven.

  • Dweebston||

    An elegant solution for a more civilized age.

  • ||

    The asshole would have the sheriff arrest you. Then you'd have to wait in jail until you get your day in court

    Oh, you were talking about the holocaust denier? Sorry my mistake. When you said asshole, I assumed we were talking prosecutor.

  • Invisible Finger||

    You wouldn't get to complain that your office is underfunded?

  • Paul.||

    statements that injure the reputation of Jews as a class (or presumably Muslims, blacks, gays, men, police officers, law professors, Republicans, or any other such group as a class

    There went political campaigning.

  • Riven||

    Goddammit, Montana.

    This is why none of the other states ever invite us to their birthday parties. T_T

  • Florida Man||

    *spins around in pool with gimlet in hand*
    Well, about time to dry off and type some inflammatory things on the Twitter. Because I can do that here.

  • Sevo||

    Riven|6.5.15 @ 12:56PM|#
    "Goddammit, Montana."

    California! At least we're not Montana!

  • Sudden||

    In this context, you forgot "yet"

  • Invisible Finger||

    The Pac NW was mostly settled by statist assholes from the Northeast. Away from the coasts, it's not much better - they're generally against government regulation of business but otherwise they want people controlled and are generally in favor of government money being handed to crony businesses. The Mormons were originally Massholes.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    The Pacific Northwest was hardly mostly settled by those from the Northeast. Most were from the midwest and enough from the south that there was strong southern support during the Civil War. After the war, even more southerners migrated to the area.

  • See Double You||

    I hadn't heard of this until seeing it on Reason. As I've always said, Montana is no libertarian paradise.

  • Libertarian||

    Montana!? I thought Montana was one of those wild, live and let live states. Have that many Californians moved there already?

  • From the Tundra||

    Lol. Go visit Whitefish sometime. Might as well be Portland.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This saddens me.

  • RickC||

    And Missoula. Damn it.

  • Riven||

    For the most part, it really is--unless you're against freedom and 'Murica, etc. Remember a few weeks ago there was a guy trying to ban yoga pants?

    Yeah, every now and then we do something that's borderline retahded.

  • Mainer2||

    wicked retahded

  • Invisible Finger||

    retahded

    I think I've spotted part of the problem with Montana

  • Marty Comanche||

    Butte, Montana elected a Socialist mayor (big S) in 1910. The Socialist and Progressive parties both looked at the state as a ripe target.

  • ||

    The fuck! We're moving (back) to Montana this year. Have we screwed up?
    'Course we're leaving Massholeistan - it has to be better. Right?

  • Sudden||

    Any of the other 'stans are preferable to Massholeistan, so yes it is better.,

  • Invisible Finger||

    It's just like Massholeistan only with less business regulation and more corporate subsidies.

  • Loki||

    I suspect the prosecution is trying to make a name for themselves by being the first to successfully prosecute "hate speech" in America under the guise of prosecuting it as "defamation." And/ or they're hoping this goes all the way up to the Supreme Court in hopes that SCOTUS will rule that hate speech = defamation. I'd like to think that SCOTUS isn't that stupid, but then again there's the "penaltax" ruling, so...

  • Aresen||

    I would go with the prosecutor being well aware that it is going to be tossed but wanting to campaign for Attorney General at some future time.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Tough on crime. Tough on Nazis.

  • Loki||

    Tough on crime. Tough on Nazis.

    "I have tried Nazis for defamtion, how many Nazis has my opponent tried for defamation? Zero! Clearly my opponent is soft on Nazis!"

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    Hello, fellow Private Citizens.

    I, too, am a Private Citizen.

    I think that limitations on government are good and we should use social media 2 ("too" in the hip hop parlance) spread the message.

    Any other dissen--Like Minded Fellow Private Citizens--should post their Legal Name, Legal Address, Social Security Number, and 2015 Tax Return, in a form of #swaggy #protest to shut down "The Adult Male"

    Ha. Ha. Ha.

    We will show them, fellow Private Citizen!

  • Sudden||

    You do have a great username. I would be willing to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • Raston Bot||

    Police allegedly found jugs of urine in his truck. I could understand sending him for an emergency psych eval based on published statements. But why the hell would they prosecute him for hate speech? What a waste of resources. Flathead County's prosecutor must be bored and trying to justify his budget.

  • Riven||

    So, what, the government can mandate at the point of a gun that you undergo a psych eval just because you act a little funny--but haven't done anything criminal?

  • GILMORE||

    As someone related to crazy people = yes

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Note to self: remove jugs of urine from trunk.

  • Sudden||

    Alternative: move to Florida

  • EV||

    It will be a cold day in hell when you take my jugs of urine from me commie. I thought this was America!

  • OldMexican||

    Flathead County resident David Lenio, 28, is being prosecuted for making disparaging remarks about Jews on Twitter and denying that the Holocaust happened.


    This has so many First Amendment red flags that it should make a color-blind man see colors again. I would expect the American Civil Liberties Union to be over this like rye on bread but something tells me I shouldn't hold my breath.

    But the Montana prosecutor disagrees; statements that injure the reputation of Jews as a class (or presumably Muslims, blacks, gays, men, police officers, law professors, Republicans, or any other such group as a class), the prosecutor reasons, are also covered by the statute.


    The problem here is that the definition of "Class" is completely arbitrary and —one could argue— totally made-up by the prosecutor. Would the class of Jews consider all Jews or only those born into the religion? Would it encompass all Jews or only practicing Jews (and not atheistic Jews)?

    Besides, you cannot injure a group's reputation. Groups don't exist —only INDIVIDUALS step on this good Earth. What the prosecutor is doing is what most collectivists do: provide a group with organismic features (e.g. conscience, wants and needs) as if the whole gained these because of the individuals that compose it, even when the "group" is conceptualized in an arbitrary way, not unlike drawing a circle around a group of people.

  • C. Anacreon||

    You knew they'd eventually find a way to use Citizens United to further their evil schemes. Groups are individuals!

  • Tak Kak||

    Just testing the waters to see if they can get Richard Spencer.

  • Juice||

    What a flathead.

  • ||

    This guy is a nut and looks like he could be dangerous, but this is not the way to go about it.

    I am thinking Ed Corrigan needs to resign.

  • prolefeed||

    This guy is a nut and looks like he could be dangerous, but this is not the way to go about it.

    Are you referring to the somewhat unPC defendant, or the prosecutor trammeling our right to be arseholes?

  • Loki||

    Are you referring to the somewhat unPC defendant, or the prosecutor trammeling our right to be arseholes?

    Or both?

  • Agammamon||

    Since when is defamation *criminal*? Since when can you defame a group (vice an organization)?

    If the Jews feel they've been defamed then get the Emperor of the Jews to file a suit

  • Acosmist||

    I thought they used a king.

  • Sudden||

    I thought is was a Pharoah that told them what to do....

  • Agammamon||

    Nah, they killed him.

  • Charles Easterly||

    That was the Romans.

  • Agammamon||

    On topic! Sort of. Anyone seen this?

    http://gizmodo.com/use-google-.....1709200937

    There's no way that map can be accurate - all those red states are green and a whole bunch of blue states are red. I mean, everyone knows that the hicks in AZ just hate them some Messcins for takin' our jerbs!

  • Agammamon||

    “Notably, this shows that greater proportions of Google search queries containing the “N-word” were concentrated in the rural Northeast and South of the US,” the authors write.

    Of course the article's writer is showing his racism by assuming that searching for a single racist term would be a good proxy for racism in general.

    Funnily enough, racists are most concerned with the races they encounter the most - so you expect the 'nigger searches' to be in areas of the country that have large black populations.

    The map would look totally different if you were looking for kike or wetback or chink.

  • prolefeed||

    Dunno if this map means anything. For example, the black members of my work team are prone to toss out the n-word on a frequent basis, yet don't mean anything racist by using that term.

  • Loki||

    Plus, how they know that a lot of those searched weren't people searching for rap lyrics? The n-word does appear in a lot of rap songs, afterall. Context, how does it fucking work?

  • Loki||

    Now that I've RTFA, they claim to have controlled for that, but still seems like pretty shoddy methodology to me.

  • ||

    Of course the article's writer is showing his racism by assuming that searching for a single racist term would be a good proxy for racism in general.

    While certainly not ironclad, and certainly limiting notions of racism to one race, I do think one-word searches on google are pretty indicative of an obnoxious fascination with racism.

    Just like with Rape vs. regrettable sex, I think there is certainly some blurring of the line of wondering where the word came from as opposed seeking out fellow klansmen for a lynching.

    *checks search history for "monocles" and "orphans"*

  • Agammamon||

    But looking up 'nigger' is not going to get you a good approximation of how *racist* an area is - it will only tell you that the area has racists *and* black people.

    If you looked up 'beaner' you'd have 'concentrations' of racism in completely different areas - AZ, SoCal, etc wouldn't be looking so good while the areas that are red on that map would be 'pure' green.

  • wwhorton||

    We're treading into certified "correlation isn't causation" territory, among other things. I didn't read his paper because I'm trying to enjoy my last weekend as not yet a father and have much better things to do--such as drink beer and listen to my wife curse our unborn child for being yet unborn--but I didn't see anything re: methodology. Did he track searches by the number of times a search term is used by unique IP address? Did he account for searches like, "etymology of nigger", or, "Nigger Jim"? Hell, if I searched for his paper, "number of nigger searches", "use of nigger by state" or something, it would count as a "racist search" by his qualifications.

    Also, even if we assume that each hit is a unique search by a single racist individual, what we're seeing is the number of racists with access to the Internet. This doesn't account for people traveling, people who are using computers in libraries, etc. Plus, there are plenty of racist people who don't need to use Google to find "nigger jokes", just as there are plenty of African-American studies majors writing papers about contemporary racism in popular culture who do.

    Much as I love the idea that this is showing some of the Proggiest parts of the midwest and northeast to be more racist than the perpetual boogeyman that is the south, it's just absolute shit as a study.

  • Sudden||

    What Stephens-Davidowitz ultimately discovered was that racism “appears to have cost Obama roughly four percentage points of the national popular vote in both 2008 and 2012.”

    Of course no data on how many points BO gained for being black, which I would posit significantly higher (on account of both tribalism black vote turnout and debilitating white guilt) than whatever points he "lost"

  • Akira||

    Maybe since black candidates lose points due to racism, they should automatically be awarded a predetermined percentage over any white candidates! For equality!

    /prog

  • Acosmist||

    Is there ANY map of the US by X that isn't just a map of the US by race?

    People say "nigger" in the South! Gasp! You know who lives in a South (not Hitler, at least not this continent)?

  • ||

    It's always about the Jews.

    Meh. I'm about due for a Wilensky's sandwich anyway.

  • Sudden||

    You spelled poutine wrong

  • Jordan||

    Congratulations to the prosecutor for demonstrating that there are even bigger pieces of shit than this anti-Semite. It was quite a high bar, but you managed to clear it.

  • Agammamon||

    I hate these people. When you're making Illinois nazis look good then you've really made some poor choices in your life.

  • Free Society||

    "What do the Illinois nazis have that we don't have?"
    \Indiana nazi

  • Swiss Servator, Nierezeit!||

    You know who else wanted to ...hey, wait a minute?!

  • Libertarian||

    I think the phrase you were looking for was:

    You know who else was persecuteded for defaming the Jews?

  • bacon-magic||

    Thanks for the nut-punch ENB.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Maybe she isn't even a nut-puncher... perhaps Elizabeth prefers blapping collective commentariat starfish in the puss with a found whiffle bat.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    A spokesman with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence discovered his Twitter feed and alerted the FBI

    These snits knee-jerk not only legal carry but legal tirade. The anti-gun crowd is avowedly anti-open society.

    Dude is likely a punkass fuckwaffle but I see nothing wrong with making alarming comments in a country where offensive speech is protected.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    speech used to be protected; now you need a trigger warning.

  • ||

    Who will protect Agile's speech?

  • Charles Easterly||

    A large number of us around here, I imagine.

    First they came for the Cyborg....

  • wwhorton||

    Bless his schizophrenic ass, I'll go to the barricades for him.

  • Agammamon||

    The sad truth is that people - including Americans - are not just not pro-freedom, they're anti-freedom.

    You know the apocryphal story of crabs in a bucket - if one sees another climbing out he'll grab on even to the point of keeping the other from escaping.

    Humans do that *willfully*.

  • prolefeed||

    The crabs might just be trying to get out of the bucket by grabbing the crabs that are on the verge of succeeding.

    We have a better idea of the motivations of this vile prosecutor.

  • Agammamon||

    That's what I meant - the crabs are mindlessly trying to escape to freedom even if in that mindlessness they fail while destroying someone else's chances to escape.

    People are *content* to stay in the bucket and get pissed that anyone else would dare to try to leave so they'll sabotage that motherfucker.

  • Free Society||

    Reminds me of that sociology experiment where they told workers that everyone was going to get a raise, but certain people could either get more than everyone else, or no one can get a raise at all. The workforce opted to forgo raises for everyone out of spite for the people who would get more.

  • RickC||

    This shit is what has me thinking lately that the American experiment was doomed from the beginning. We just haven't advanced enough as a species. I would say that the principles outlined by the founding require a "new man" similar to the notion of the socialists' "new man". The problem is that our version of the "new man" can only come about through personal evolution and not through external force, unlike the socialists' efforts. And evolution is primarily a very slow mechanism for transforming a species physically, or in our case, mentally. The tribe and the residual force of the mindset that made tribalism successful for millennia will be slow to die off, if it ever does.

  • Free Society||

    I would argue that for statism to work, you must have a "new man". Whereas a society predicated on property rights, contracts and self-ownership is custom built around human nature.

  • RickC||

    Not sure history bears this out. For most of it it seems that the individual (unless he was the biggest baddest - king, pharaoh or emperor with a group of thugs backing him up) was thought of as just a cog in the collective or tribal machine. This pattern seems to cut across cultures too. Rights, contracts and self-ownership, as well as the notion of the sovereign individual are relatively new concepts in the scope of human history. I'm not disagreeing with your take on these as attributes of a better society, I'm saying there seems to be a lot of resistance to the ideas based on centuries of tribal organization. Or else, why would we need to have this discussion?

  • Invisible Finger||

    This is the first anti-Semite they've ever seen.

    Seriously, there's only like 12 actual former Nazi's living anymore, so they have to expand their definition of who they target.

    (And do you know who else expanded his definition of a group targeted for persecution?)

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    The Wicked Witch of the West?

  • Rich||

    anything that exposes a person or a group, class, or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace

    Talk about poor wording. Schindler's List exposed me to hatred, so let's jail Steven Spielberg.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    You know, I'm really starting to think these fuckers deserve a world where the Lenios get the power they're arrogating to the government.

  • Free Society||

    Well they've certainly built up a fearsome tyranny machine, just waiting to be turned up to it's maximum setting.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Speaking as a Jew, I'm disgusted that the persecutor ever filed charges against that brain-dead Nazi shithead. Until and unless he actually threatens someone, he has the right to say whatever shit dribbles out of his hole.

    -jcr

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Some humans are pretty fucking cool and even Jewish.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Traditionally, defamation is smearing a specific human being, or at most smearing an artificial person like a specific company or something.

    Like, "Joe Blow molests sheep," or "The local Arby's serves horsemeat labelled beef."

    Extending defamation law to "groups" would apply to things like "white people invented slavery," or "cops get fat from munching on too many donuts."

    And while truth is a defense, who has the burden of proof? Traditionally in criminal defamation cases the defendant had to prove truth, but I think at least this has now been reversed to the prosecution has to prove falsehood.

    Which would suggest the prosecution has to hold a historical seminar with a bunch of professors are brought on all-expenses-paid trips to the jurisdiction to show that Jews love free speech, or that Republicans rarely eat babies, etc.

  • Loki||

    or that Republicans rarely eat babies

    But everyone knows Republicans rarely eat babies. They starve them to death on the side of the road after forcing poor womyn to carry them to term after forcibly impregnating them in rape dungeons. Sheesh, everyone knows that.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    ...after forcibly impregnating them in rape dungeons.

    Wait, Warty's a Republican?

  • Loki||

    According to Botard and PB everyone who posts here is secretly a Republican, so yes. In fact, so are you, bet you didn't know that about yourself did you?

  • Invisible Finger||

    Another prosecutor hard at waste.

  • Free Society||

    Not surprised.

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    "But under Montana's ridiculously broad defamation statute, 'defamatory matter is anything that exposes a person or a group, class, or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace in society or injury to the person’s or its business or occupation." And anyone who "communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed commits the offense of criminal defamation.'"

    So any political or religious speech at all, then. Or a critical, acerbic film review.

    Here I thought campus speech codes were bad.

  • Free Society||

    Here I thought Montana was one of the freer states

  • Akira||

    I thought it was pretty close to THE free-est.

    What is the best state for individual freedom, then?

  • Invisible Finger||

    Probably Texas until more Californians move there. Otherwise maybe Indiana or Kentucky. Cold enough to keep statists from moving in. Illinois is cold too but the statists were already there for so long they're driving the non-statists out faster.

  • Mattnad||

    Hate speech laws are notoriously difficult to keep clear of the 1st amendment. The other problem is that they are enforced so capriciously that they start to fail as a deterrent, if that's their intent.

    Finally, what this prosecution has done is made this man a martyr and given more visibility to his bigotry. Not really want you want if you disagree with his words.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    But I'm still moving to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • ||

    By happy coincidence I have pygmy ponies for sale. Formerly owned by a fur-trapper who was blinded in a bizarre snow cone incident.

  • Lesdouche||

    This is the kind of case the ACLU used to take but somehow they've fled from actual border-defining case law in favor of promoting a political agenda. Reason is out-ACLUing them.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    First they came for the nazis...wait, is that how it goes?

  • Sevo||

    Hitler!
    The answer is always Hitler.

  • macsnafu||

    So, the way to keep people from holding unpopular opinions is to make them illegal?

  • Ben Garrison||

    I live in Montana and I know it's freer than a lot of states. I'm also very familiar with 'hate speech' since many trolls around the age of this young man have enjoyed using my name and face to spread their hate--and it has gone on for five years. Is hate speech really 'free' if it destroys the reputations of others as well as their ability to communicate clearly? They used hate speech to destroy my free speech.

    America has long since tolerated hate speech as the price for free speech and the haters were easily ignored. But now, with the internet, the unheard and the powerless have access to a giant megaphone to spew hate anonymously. Removing hate speech from social media is not being against free speech. In fact, it's a way of PROTECTING the real free speech of REAL people. If we don't police this ourselves, look for big government to step in and shut down all free speech on the internet...using hate speech as their excuse. --Ben Garrison

  • DesigNate||

    Well, if they were actually using your name and likeness, then they've committed identity theft/fraud/a number of other crimes. Go after them for that. What you're proposing, and what will actually be done with that kind of power is most definitely against free speech.

    Also, if you're still able to communicate then your freedom of speech has not been destroyed.

  • wwhorton||

    That dude is a "REAL" person, and his speech is "REAL" speech, it just sucks. Sorry, that's still protected, even if it's electronic, even if it's something you don't like. "Haters" get to hate. You get to respond in kind. Libel and slander are actual crimes, and if you can prove them then you're free to use the law to recover damages. Or, if you just don't want nasty Tweets, take it up with Twitter, a private company who is free to enact whatever policies they choose.

    I'm sorry, but removing objectionable speech is by definition an attack on free speech. I don't know you and I'm not familiar with your name, but I'm sorry if you've suffered some kind of unpleasantness because of dickheads on the Internet. But limiting free speech won't prevent or repair your injuries, it'll just harm more people.

  • Ben Garrison||

    I went to three lawyers. Online defamation is the achilles heel of lawyers. They know that most of the libel is coming from anonymous young people in basements. The difficulty is proving they were really the ones behind the IP address--which isn't as easy to get as one might think. It requires a subpoena. Lawyers want a financial reward and often there is none to be had...and to even get a lawyer's attention requires at least $10 grand to start. One woman spent $100k to successfully prosecute one of her tormentors who was libeling her and her business. She'll never get that money back. That's why Internet trolling and online defamation is becoming more prevalent. Ignore them? I tried that for years and it got worse. Google my name and you'll see a photo of me in a Nazi uniform and my face in hate screed boxes. That ruined my business. It's a full time job trying to remove these things and in the case of Google, they won't. I lost to the Internet Hate Machine.

  • Sevo||

    "[...]Removing hate speech from social media is not being against free speech.[...]"

    This is because "up" actually is "down", right? Or because sarc? Or because you're an imbecile? Which is it?

  • Ben Garrison||

    You're the imbecile. I'd love to see what you'd do if trolls stole YOUR name, YOUR face and your family photos and transmogrified your entire family into Nazis. Good luck trying to get it removed. When you do, it might just spring up again. The trolls do not OWN social media and they are not entitled to cry for murder when social media has community standards.

  • Micu5||

    The guy's an idiot. If that was illegal we'd have to build a wall around Washington, DC.

    Montana sucks.

    Come and get me.

  • searchingmind||

    Huh??? You say, "According to this judge, it's unimaginable how a law against voicing any negative opinion about any group of people could infringe on free speech in a substantial way." No, the judge specifically said that the defendant "does not [yet] establish beyond a reasonable doubt" that the law is unconstitutionally over-broad. That's the reverse of "unimaginable". Of course, if this absurd law is not overturned soon, it will be amusing to see how it fares in an election year.

  • Duelles||

    Let's see if we can get some Hillary Clinton campaign stops in Montana. She'd be locked away forever.

  • Moshe Ben-Jacob||

    It is about time. The USA is far behind many European nations in prosecuting Holocaust deniers and people who disparage Jews, or criticize Israel and zionism. Stomp them out where you find them.

  • wwhorton||

    Oh, word? Because we were pretty good at actually killing the people committing the actual Holocaust, as I recall.

    Sorry, but we've got this Constitution thing. And the Enlightenment and stuff, apparently we're like the last country to care about that sort of thing. So, yeah, people get to talk shit even if it hurts your feelings. Feel free to talk it right back.

  • ||

    Feel free to go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    Which comment was directed at the jackass espousing pogroms for people whom he finds distasteful and not at wwh

  • Sevo||

    Pretty sure that's (music symbol) "tollin', trollin', trollin'"

  • deutschtorrie||

    I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing,

    ------------- http://www.jobnet10.com

  • Bush League||

    The well placed hashtags make his message much more cogent.

  • patskelley||

    ya...cuz I say the darndest stuff sometimes and even though I truly hold no ill will against anyone I say the darndest things sometimes that insinuate otherwise. I tell unsolicited callers to go bleep, and bleep their Mother, bleep horse, bleep mountain, bleep. I like to argue with bureaucrats and sometimes I tell uncooperative company representatives that I think their bleep, bleep, bleeping bleeps are bleeping bleep. Does that make me a bad American that I honestly do not care one whit whether Bruce is Caitlin now and I have never, ever watched a single Kardashian - anything and really don't know who they are or care? Damn, now I'm off track. Bleep.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    What a bunch of Maroons!

  • james30239||

    &&&&Start; making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • D.||

    The article reports incorrectly that the judge refused to dismiss the case. The putative order linked is actually the prosecutor's response to the defendant's motion, and as far as I can tell the judge hasn't issued a ruling yet.

  • Bob Armstrong||

    In any of the self-congratulatory spouting of the mohammed mockers , I always point out the hypocrisy of there being a half dozen old men in prison for years in various European countries for simply questioning aspects of the "holocaust" -- particularly the issue of any wide spread use of gas chambers . Does Pamela Geller repudiate that ?

  • Lord at War||

    Why should she have to? She's an American living under American law. One of her points is that her commentary and these contests would be illegal under European laws- but is protected here in the US.

    Which is a better idea?

  • show me proof||

    The problem here is like the Death penalty: it becomes good enough for some people but other's get away with it.

    During the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, which I followed extensively, I saw worse comments than this kid from Montana regarding Muslims. These comments were all over mainstream media articles comment boards. I would not even repeat what I saw, but Boston area media was rife with it. But nobody was being threatened with jail for that.

    As long as these kinds of behaviors are about politically acceptable scapegoats it's ok. But if the target is somebody or some group that is "protected" or who has power, then forget it.

    We can tell the extent of power and who controls who and what by whom our "Justice" system targets.

    I think it's time for an overhaul of the Department of Justice and all it's child organizations.

  • mvq28753||

    Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super... I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I've ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h..... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.worksite90.com

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.www.netcash5.com

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netcash5.com

  • reneerenee150||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.worktoday7.com

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I am so ashamed.

  • show me proof||

    It is only some subjects that are not to be argued. Because look at some of the ugly things said about Muslims, and Geller got that cartoon contest going which resulted in 2 deaths (at least one of the guys had an FBI handler.....typical). She is such a monster, yet she is given an audience on Mainstream media to vent her hate, but nobody is charging her with any crime.
    I'm not a Muslim, but I'm sick and tired of hearing the gory hate and stuff like "kill them all", all over the internet....yet when someone does this to Jews it's a different story.
    I don't even want to live in this fucked up country anymore and am seriously looking at a couple of places in the southern hemisphere.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netcash5.com

  • beatricebeatrice||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.worktoday7.com

  • Will Jones - Atlanta||

    No coincidence atheist Herzl's "Zionism's" first letters ended the NAtionalsocialist acronym for the coalition launched into power in Germany upon the RC Council of Bishops at Fulda's approval, and their finance by Rome's American Fifth Column through Vatican banker-intermediary Rockefeller-lieutenant Knight of Malta Prescott Bush.

    Talmudism's satanic cult psychosis which, pretending to be "Jews," execrates us - here in our own land - each Saturday in their "Synagogue of Satan," teaching their children from birth we are "sub-human animals," "Goyim," "a mindless herd of cattle" their duty is "to lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity." This must end.

    To be a "Jew" one must love God and seek holiness and righteousness: Isaiah's foretold "righteous remnant of the House of Israel" we Black and White Zion-founding Gentiles are "to shelter" here in God's actual "Promised Land." Viz. Isaiah's prophesies by which the "New Israel" is to be recognized are only met by America.

    That the Holohoax is the coverup of the "Rothschild Jews'" committing the Holodomor is obvious: Truth is of God, Our Sovereign. Vatican banker-intermediary Rothschilds and their Capitol Hill-controlling Talmud/papist Organized Crime faction are not our sovereign, despite JFK's having been assassinated, for ending their fiat money scheme and ordering our withdrawal as papal catspaw from their latifundial estate of Indochina, by their operatives in the Roman Catholic CIA. Viz. 'Hunt v. Marchetti.'

  • Michael Weaver||

    RE: State vs.Lenio. Stacy Boman could be charged under:UNITED STATES CODE
    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
    § 241. Conspiracy against rights

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

    If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -

    They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

    § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien,

  • Michael Weaver||

    , or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

  • melpee||

    Fewer Nazi`s are voicing opinions on the Internet. Words expressing hatred toward Yids are collected by a holocaust survivors data bank. Surviving Yids can be given access to the names of the Nazi`s for a reasonable fee. A Yid hater on that list would not be allowed at the Bar Mitzvah of a celebrity's son. Either would a Nazi be welcomed at a chicken fry in Sharpton's home. It is futile just trying to be anonymous after posting a Nazi opinion. Simple software can find the name, address, and phone number of any Nazi hiding under an assumed name. Holocaust survivors are searching for restitution from hidden Nazi`s--billions are owed.

  • Michael Santomauro||

    Hostile Jewish sensibilities is now mainstream:

    When an ethnocentric Jewish Judge (and the Jewish lawyers) loses their objectivity, then the truism applies:

    Everything is religious, everything is political.

    Justice Matthew F. Cooper: Sending me this about "The Fucking Jews"
    Mr. Santomauro: No, actually, it was the opposite of that. It was "Fuck the Arabs" in the essay.
    Sandra Schpoont (Attorney for my 11 year old son): Oh, that's better.
    Madelyn Jaye:: (Attorney for my ex-wife): Oh, that's better.
    Steven Mandel (Attorney for my ex-wife): That's better.
    Justice Matthew F. Cooper: Oh, that's better.

    Letter from The Mandel Law Firm (Steven J. Mandel) 12-9-13
    http://tinyurl.com/ozkcek8

    Hostile New York divorce Judge Matthew Cooper: "Is that [Jewish] agenda to dilute the Aryan race?" On page 20:

    http://www.adelaideinstitute.org /newsletters/Newsletter 727.pdf

    +++

    My essay in question:
    +The Myth of the Innocent Civilian

    https://www.nolanchart.com/ article674-the-myth-of-the-innocent-civilian-html


    Peace.
    Michael Santomauro
    Cell: 917-974-6367

    "An anti-Semite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an anti-Semite."--Michael Santomauro.

  • blissentia||

  • Greg Gerdes||

    I have sent the following (via fax and/or email) to most everyone involved in the arrest / charging of Mr. Lenio, and many others who know about the case. Anyone and everyone is not just welcome, but encouraged to copy it and send it to anyone who might have an interest in the case.

    FYI - I haven't been arrested yet.

    What are they waiting for?

    What are they so afraid of?

    * * * * *

    ATTENTION ALL FREEDOM LOVING MONTANANS

    The Flathead County Attorney’s office has recently charged an informed citizen with felonious criminal defamation for - in part; speaking the truth about a historical myth / archaeological hoax.

    (See: State of Montana vs. David Joseph Lenio)

    NOTICE:

    The following communication is being made with full knowledge of its so-called “defamatory character” by - Greg Richard Gerdes - citizen of The State of Montana.

    The intent of this communication is to express a sincere belief that all persons, groups, classes and associations - whose words and deeds have resulted in Mr. Joseph Lenio being unconscionably and unconstitutionally charged with criminal defamation for making the following true statement:

    “Now that the holocaust has been proven to be a lie beyond a reasonable doubt”

    have earned any and all - hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation and disgrace they receive from society.

    (To be continued in my next post.)

  • Greg Gerdes||

    (Continued from my last post.)

    To assert my personal public statement / communication on this issue: The orthodox “jewish holocaust of WW II” story is a debunked myth / hoax and all persons, groups, classes and associations who proclaim that it is true are brainwashed sheep ignorant of historical, scientific and archaeological facts and deserving of any scorn resulting from their ignorance and malfeasance.

    Authored and signed by Plains Montana resident - Greg Richard Gerdes

    President of - The National Association of Forensic Historians - www.nafcash.com

    Singed: ________________________________ Date: ___________

    If the Flathead County Attorney’s office has arrested and charged David Joseph Lenio for felonious “defamatory statements directed at - a religious group of people” and “jewish people as a collective class of people” - then why haven’t they arrested and charged me?

  • Greg Gerdes||

    FYI, if you would like to get a better understanding about how the persecuting attorney's are angling to convict Mr. Lenio on the Orwellian group defamation charge (and the reason for my using the wording that I did in my above statement), see page 14 in the - state argued in response - link in the above article.

    BTW, I still haven't been arrested yet. (I'm sure the Flathead County attorney's have figured out already what a disaster that would be for them - they are terrified of me because they know I would destroy them in their own courtroom.)

  • Greg Gerdes||

    Please note on page 16 how ass. county attorney bowman tries to confuse and intermingle the alleged threatening / intimidation comments of Mr. Lenio with his alleged defamatory comments.

    She says of Mr. Lenio's statement - “Now that the holocaust has been proven to be a lie beyond a reasonable doubt, it is now time to hunt the Nazi hunters.”

    "It is clear from Mr. Lenio's communications he is asserting the statements as if they were fact."

    Well bowman and corrigan - here is me - Greg Richard Gerdes - of Plains Montana, "asserting a statement as if it were fact:"

    THE hOLOCAU$T IS A LIE

    Again, on page 16 of the document we are discussing - ass. county attorney bowman writes:

    "As provided in the Affidavit, Lenio states the holocaust was a lie, and it is "time to hunt the Nazi hunters." Affidavit, 4 (Feb. 28 2015). This is merely one example of Lenio's statements intended to attack Jewish people based on religion."

    See how she's trying to confuse alleged threats / intimidation with alleged defamation?

    So let's see if the Flathead County attorney's have the guts to charge me with defaming the poor persecuted jews for saying the same thing Mr. Lenio did about the holohoax.

  • Greg Gerdes||

    Well, it's been half a month since my last "defamatory" post, and I've yet to be arrested / charged with “defamatory statements directed at - a religious group of people” and/or “jewish people as a collective class of people.”

    What is the Flathead County attorney's office waiting for?

    What are they so afraid of?

    What's even worse than the utter hypocrisy of me not getting arrested / charged - is the total silence by the lamestream media up in Kalispell about this whole "group defamation" thing. The Flathead Beacon even deleted a post of mine under an online article which was not much more than a copy of what I posted above. I also sent a copy to every editor / reporter at the Flathead Beacon via email, and to date, not one of the recipients has shown the intelligence, courage, integrity or character to write an article addressing the absurd "group defamation" charges that have been brought against Mr. Lenio.

    I don't know what's worse - the malfeasance of the Flathead County attorney's office or the cowardice of the Flathead Beacon's staff.

    Before I sign off, let me reiterate (with full knowledge of its so-called “defamatory character”):

    I, Greg Richard Gerdes - of Plains Montana - "assert as if it were fact"

    The holocau$t is a holohoax.

    So what are you waiting for - Ed Corrigan, Stacy Boman and Travis R. Ahner?

    What are you so afraid of?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online