I have a news flash for people: Under the 1st Amendment, bigotry is a protected right.  At the same time, ‘doxing’ people to silence them is not only domestic terrorism, its cowardice, as well!  Here’s the story:

Race Hoaxed Ole Miss Student Drops Out Amid Doxxing Campaign and Death Treats – Fundraiser for Other Student Who Did Not Apologize Raises OVER $28K

And here is the argument:

terrorism /tĕr′ə-rĭz″əm/

noun

1. The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
2. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.

When you ‘dox’ someone, you are inviting violence upon that person.  Just the threat of that violence is sufficient to meet the definition of terrorism — especially when it is in connection to a political agenda.  In the case of ‘doxing,’ it is also an act f cowardice — because you are hiding behind the keyboard while leaving others to do the violence for you.

Therefore, doxing is domestic terrorism and — in a just country — it would be prosecuted accordingly.

Whereas, bigotry is actually protected by the 1st Amendment.  The 1st Amendment protects freedom of association as well as political speech.  Calling that speech ‘hate speech’ does not suddenly exempt it from the protections of the 1st Amendment.

Furthermore, if you would bother to read the notes from the framing of the Bill of Rights (you can find them in the Congregational record), you will find that the 1st Amendment was meant to protect the right of conscience.

Therefore, both the letter and the spirit of the 1st Amendment protects an individual’s right to be a bigot and to peacefully express those beliefs.

You are free to disagree, but you will be wrong — by both definition and the letter/spirit of the law (not that such a thing matters to those who would disagree).

AND ANOTHER THING

When people treat someone as though ‘they deserve this’ before they have even been tried or convicted of anything, they are violating the spirit of our due process laws — not to mention judging the thoughts and intentions of another person.  When we judge based upon appearance along, it is we who are in the wrong.

Either way, if you are on the side threatening the women in this story, you are the one in the wrong. Do not pretend to be the virtuous party — you are not!

–Black 3, Actual

*********************

A more lengthy, but much more eloquently argued second opinion explaining my position — and more: