2 words….GOOD RIDDANCE!

v3.0Possible reasons they are using MySpace are 1) it is free and 2) they don’t have the technical knowledge to create a webpage.
What you need to be ready for is that they could make the leap from MySpace to buying a domain name and using a web hosting service.
Getting a hosted web site taken down can be a little more difficult and take more time. But, it certainly is not impossible and can be done if you know how to go about it.
If you don’t, I can provide you with the know how and I’m sure several other Blenders can do the same.
(I won’t give any specific information here because I don’t want to give Andrade and his family a headstart.)
Unfortunately, many web hosting services will only act after getting a cease and desist letter. That means you’ll have to get a lawyer to draft one for you. I’m sure someone will do that pro bono.

P.S.Set up a Google Alert for Andrade’s name. That way you’ll be notified via e-amil if they set up a new website anywhere.
http://www.google.com/alerts/

getting out of handthis subject is really getting out of hand. Autumn and the rest need to stop, I understand what he did, however he was found guilty, so please move on. I notice that community never took this type of action to make sure the murders of Matt S. doesn’t have a myspace or any other site.
He sister has the right to create a page in his memory just as we don’t for our love one.
how would you feel if someone reported your page over and over claiming it was inappropriate. All this will not bring her back.  

The page violated MySpace’s TOSSo, like any other page that did/does, it’s removal is completely appropriate.  But, beyond that, the page was a hate-crime in and of itself.  It mocked and insulted the very group of PERSONS from which the individual who was murdered came.  That may not technically be a hate crime in the U.S., but it is clearly a hate-crime in many countries, accessible to all of which were that page.  But, even beyond being a TOS violation and a hate crime, the page was just plain morally wrong when judged by just about any human community short of the K.K.K. or the Fred Phelps Klan.  Insinuating that ANY group of persons are less than human in the eyes of a popular deity-concept is historically a very dangerous proposition that seems always to have disastrous results. Putting an end to OBJECTIVE moral and human wrongs is a noble pursuit.  I would hope that you would not tell the family of the deceased that they need to, “please move on.”  I honestly don’t believe you would, I KNOW you have more basic human decency than that and will simply assume that you simply have not thought through all of the ramifications of that statement or of these events as they now unfold.

I second that!

I am guessing that you did not actually see the pageIt not only violated the MySpace TOS, but it absolutely crossed the line into hate speech (see Storm’s comment).
A page supporting a sibling who is in jail is one thing. Propagating and spreading hate speech is another.
That is not what MySpace or Facebook is for.

Excellent suggestion, Fritz.

The Killers of Matthew Shepherddid not try to set up a Myspace page in the first place, and in the second place, if such a page violated the TOS by propagating hate speech, then it would have to go as well.

@sickntired“Autumn and the rest need to stop”
as part of the “rest”…who the F*CK do you think you are telling us what we NEED to do…huh cupcake?

Yet another alias?You’re the sister, I assume.

good job Autumn!did you ever hear back from the prison about his apparent ability to use a cell phone?  

Not only thatAndrade was using a contraband cellphone to post to the webpage.
Most commercial websites and web hosting services have terms and conditions that allow them to terminate the accounts of people who expose them to lawsuits.
I hope Autumn doesn’t stop. If she does, the family of the victim will have to take this on themselves.
It is a wonderful thing she is doing.

The family of Angie Zapata wants the pages down……because they consider the pages, as these pages were written, to be disrespectful to the memory of Angie.
As a trans woman, I also found the pages to be written in a way that was objectionable to my peers and me.
MySpace has a TOS that disallows these kind of pages that express the kind of hate that’s being expressed.
I quote Bayard Rustin all the time. This is what he said:

“[T]he job of the gay community is not to deal with extremists who would castigate us or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us. The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us. Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That’s our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment.”
–Bayard Rustin; From Montgomery to Stonewall (1986)

Some of my peers and I at The Blend are controlling anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-bisexual, and anti-transgender (anti-LGBT) sentiment currently being expressed in Allen Ray Andrade’s name at MySpace.
Well, given all these reasons, what we’re doing is good enough for me. I know I won’t be dissuaded from our current course of action.

who the F I amfirst off I not one of those Fag’s who claims everything to that happens to me is a damn Hate Crime. Not one who claims I was fired for being gay. I’m not one who has to define my life as a victim for life…
no matter how hateful, no matter what is said, in this county we have freedom of speech..

“A central aspect of the hate speech debate is that concepts of what is acceptable and unacceptable differ, depending on eras in history and one’s cultural and religious background.”

face it not everything that happens to us a group is a hate crime,
we have become a group of victims, to advance our cause  

slightly bemused Australian wonders…Leave aside the aspect of whether Andrade was posting from prison: I’m all for that being stopped. Part of the punishment is to be isolated from society.
But I am wondering whether you really want to force Andrade’s family off the net. OK, the page violated MySpace ToS and it’s gone (again). But what if the family does acquire a domain name and gets someone to host it? Are you going to take Fritz up on his offer to show you how to get it taken down? Are you sure that’s what you really want?
I ask because, although I didn’t read the MySpace page in full, it didn’t seem to me to be particularly aimed at inciting violence towards transpeople. It expressed an ignorant, bigoted, narrow opinion, and it didn’t even express it articulately or well. But from what I remember it seemed to be saying something along the lines of “My brother loves people who he regards as real women. The people who he regards as real women are those who were born completely anatomically female.”
That may be ignorant and offensive and it and the rest of the page may be very hurtful to Ms Zapata’s family, but does it really cross the line into something which should not be allowed to be expressed? Isn’t there a danger when we start forcing that which we deem offensive and hurtful out of the public space, that others could use the same arguments to try to censor us?
And yes, websites are hosted by companies, and MySpace is a company, so in some senses we’re talking about private commerce, but expressing an opinion on a website also looks pretty much like public speech to me. What if no one would provide internet services to Pam because the majority deemed the content of PHB to be offensive and hurtful? That would feel like censorship to me even though it you could argue that it would just be individual companies making a choice about who they will do business with and on what terms.
So forcing Andrade’s family off the net sits uncomfortably with me at the minute. Have I got a screwed up perspective on this? Happy to look at it from a different perspective if I’m missing something.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It means the government can’t prevent you from speaking and expressing your opinion.
But, if you tell your boss to fuck off, you’ll get fired.
If you yell fire in a crowded theater, you’ll be charged with reckless endangerment.
If you encite a riot, you can be charged with any deaths that may occur as a result.
If you use hate speech, your MySpace page will be shut down.
Please educate yourself before commenting here again. Read a book on the U.S. Constitution. Take a class at a community college.

no matter how hateful, no matter what is said

Yes. What is said matters. You can’t just say anything and expect to escape the consequences.
You can’t solicit murder and claim that doing so is your Constitutional right. You can’t slander others with your words and escape being sued. You can’t promote hatred and expect to use the Constitution as a cover.

PleaseGo attend your next Log Cabin meeting and continue your victimhood by pretending it doesn’t exist.

Maybe if they were justarguing for their brother’s “repentence” or something, but they were trying to justify his murder as somehow not as bad because the victim wasn’t a “real” woman.  That’s what made it so offensive.  

Red herring

What if no one would provide internet services to Pam because the majority deemed the content of PHB to be offensive and hurtful?

And, maybe the sky will be pink instead of blue when I wake up tomorrow.
If Andrade’s family wants to spend several thousand dollars, they can purchase their own Web servers and there won’t be anything we can do to stop them.
But, Autumn and and every other American has the right to complain to MySpace and whatever service is being used to harass and slur the victim’s family.
I’m sure people complain about PHB all the time and try to get Pam’s blog shut down.
People constantly file complaints about my YouTube videos. YouTube investigates and then lets me know that they found the complaint to be without merit.
Those people have the right to complain to YouTube about me. YouTube also has the right to dismiss their claims.
MySpace and YouTube use the same standard — Would a reasonable person find it to be offensive?
No reasonable person would find PHB or my YouTube videos to be offensive.
However, a reasonable person would find trying to justify the murder of an innocent human being offensive.

That’s quite a leap –From objecting to the Andrade family’s promotion of transphobic terrorism to “want[ing] to force Andrade’s family off the net.”  

Yep

That’s quite a leap…

Obviously, if they discontinue their transphobic rhetoric and stop trying to justify a brutal murder there won’t be a problem.

so we draw the line atwhat a reasonable person would find offensive?

I’m thinkingwe draw the line at trying to justify a person’s murder.

what everfirst off I’m a rep (log cabin),, I just a person who don’t need to claim I being victim, to justify my life, as so many of us need to..
we have become every thing our enemies have said we are…  

who needs enemies with you in our midst?You aren’t worth arguing with, or being uncivil to.
ya just ain’t.

the bottom line for meAndrade’s family don’t give a sh*t if another transperson is beaten or murdered…as a result of their page.
and we do

Are you gay?If you are you are a collaborationist with our oppressors
I am happy that the disaccomodation and persecution does not touch you. You would have no idea how to statnd up to it.
Preaching hatred of us costs us our lives, and whitewashing our murders is a step towards making them a cause celebre.
Angie Zapata was murdered, brutally, by a man who made a point fo speaking out repeatedly to justify his actions by denying her humanity.
A fan site(for that is what it would essentially be) for her murdered is unacceptable, just as uncceptable as a James Earl Ray fan site is or the ‘glorious heroes” websited for the men who shoot gynecologists or bomb gay clubs are…  

whateversorry if i not being a good gay sheep… and following the rest of the sheeps

now I have a lisa allen song stuck in my head“….so please don’t stay in touch”

get your facts in orderI have post to the board before, to some research first then speak  

Would you draw the same linewhen the online talk here is “f*ck the police,” or “that filthy cop deserves to die.”?
Do you draw the same line for the families of death row inmates who have sites dedicated to trying to keep their loved ones from being executed? Certainly, the victims’ families think those sites are “disrespectful”, as Autumn puts it.
I noticed for the last iteration of Andrade’s site, most of the verbiage and all of the religious imagery was gone. You had to be accepted as a friend to access the rest of his pages. Do you draw that line of yours even if you’d never see anything which offended your sensibilities unless you took those extra steps?
“Justice for Angie” was done legally when his sentence was served. Calling his sister’s words a “hate crime” should be embarrassing to us. If it were ever possible to make Andrade a victim, we seem to be trying our darnedest to do so.

“Calling his sister’s words a “hate crime” should be embarrassing to us”What is embarrassing is LGBT people not being able to recognize hate speech when they see it.
Writing that the victim wasn’t a “real” woman and that the killer loves “real” women with vaginas, etc. is a slur directed at his victim. It is an attempt to make it seem that the murder was justified.
You are way off base here.

“Justice for Angie” was done legally when his sentence was served.

Huh? Andrade hasn’t served his sentence. He is still in prison. While in prison, he received a contraband cellphone and posted to a MySpace page that was set up by his family.
Andrade belongs in prison. He does not have the right to communicate directly with the public and call his victim’s family “haterz” and give the criminal justice system the finger.

And Autumn has that right alsoAutumn and others, including myself, also have the same right to freedom of speech. Complaints about offensive comments and web material are an exercise in free speech.

I’m not sure about thatSaying why the page is offensive and ignorant is exercising free speech. Ridiculing and mocking and satire is exercising free speech. But asking for web pages to be taken down because they contain offensive comments sounds to me like shutting down free speech.
Maura, are you saying that web pages that attempt to justify a murder as being the result of gay panic or trans panic, or that call gynaecologists murderers because they perform abortions, should be taken down?
What about pages advocating voluntary euthanasia? In the eyes of some people, that would be advocating murder and demeaning the lives of the people for whom the right to voluntary euthanasia is advocated. Should they be taken down as well?

Your courageous freedom fighter who should be publicly defended…is my murdering terrorist who should become a non-person who is never heard of again. That is the danger isn’t it? Who gets to make the decision?
As I said before, I don’t believe Andrade should be able to post from prison. But I do worry that having his family’s pages taken down is going too far.
And saying that

What is embarrassing is LGBT people not being able to recognize hate speech when they see it.

seems to me to beg the question(s). What is it that characterises a slur, an offense, as hate speech? And do we want all hate speech banned or only some of it? If the latter, where do we draw the lines?

Another red herringYou’re really stuck on doing this.
Euthanasia is not a brutal hate murder. In fact, it is just the opposite.

In the eyes of some people…

That’s the key. “Some people” is not the same as the majority of reasonable people.
Some people think killing animals for food is murder. If they complain about a website called “Cooking with Veal” they aren’t going to be able to get it taken down.
Please stop trying to detract from the central issue.
We aren’t discussing a fictional scenario. We don’t need to compare this to the content of Pam’s House Blend, euthanasia or bed wetting. Doing so is a red herring argument.
We are discussing a specific situation in which the family of a convicted murderer set up a webpage that slurred and demeaned his victim. They allowed him to post to that webpage using a contraband cellphone.
That’s it. That is the matter at hand.
Everytime someone starts off a comment with “what if…” keep in mind that we are dealing with something that really happened, not a figment of the imagination. These are real people. A real person was brutally murdered. That person has a real family.

What is it that characterises a slur, an offense, as hate speech?Hate speech is “abusive, insulting, intimidating, and harassing speech that at the least fosters hatred and discrimination and at its worst promotes violence and killing.”
The family of this brutal killer wrote that the victim wasn’t a real woman and implied that she deserved to die.
They referred to the victim’s family and friends as “haterz” and allowed the killer to post messages to a website with a contraband telephone.

As I said before, I don’t believe Andrade should be able to post from prison. But I do worry that having his family’s pages taken down is going too far.

The family used the webpage to give the killer a public forum. That public forumwas used to abuse the victim’s family. How is taking away the webpage that they used to conspire in illegal activity with a killer wrong?
Obviously, MySpace argees.  

And you’re really stuck on the cellphone in the cellI’ve already said take it away and stop him posting.
But saying that this is a specific situation that clearly calls for webpages to be taken down begs the question.
Do we really want to have the right to free speech dictated by what “the majority of reasonable people” determine is OK.
Are all comments that are slurs, or that demean someone, to be taken down?
I’m not detracting from the central issue. These questions are pretty central I think.

STOP IT!

Are all comments that are slurs, or that demean someone, to be taken down?

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!
What is wrong with you?
We are discussing a specific case. The cellphone and the demeaning, hateful comments posted by Andrade’s family is part of that.
You take this giant leap to say that this includes ALL comments that demean someone.

Do we really want to have the right to free speech dictated by what “the majority of reasonable people” determine is OK.

Again, you don’t understand the basic concept here.
It is not about the majority determining what is acceptable. That’s another matter.
It is about what a reasonable person finds to be offensive. Defending a murderer by writing that his victim deserved to die is something that a reasonable person would find to be offensive.
It is something that is clearly over the line. Stop trying to equate this with things that aren’t similar.
There are things that are comparable, but you have not touched on them:
Rape
Child molestation
Slavery
Torture
These are things that a reasonable person would compare to a brutal killing. Not articles on an LGBT blog. Not euthanasia.

The central issueis that either Andrade or someone working on his behalf is using a private entity to justify a woman’s murder while defaming her. The MySpace terms of service are very clear and they are within their rights to remove anything that violates it. It would be the same with a hosted website. If they want to spend the resources on making a private website then our hands are tied. After all, a certain website run by an insane cult from Topeka is still operating.

Wow!You know (at least for me) it’s not even that his sister set up the site, vile as that is. But what kind of human being is she to trash on a murder victim-murdered by her brother.

People THINK that they know my brother based on the ONE mistake that he made last year. Well, you don’t. See, he’s a BROTHER, SON, uncle, nephew, grandson, cousin, and friend. He’s never denied his identity as a straight male. NEVER. My brother loves WOMEN…the kind GOD makes with vaginas, fallopian tubes, uteruses, periods. — In my opinion, God gives WOMEN the opportunity to co-create with him. It’s an opportunity that surgery or mindset can not achieve. It never will. — Now, that’s not to say that I believe all women should bear children. Some can’t for whatever reason and SOME shouldn’t, and I can think of one family in particular that falls in the latter. Anyway, I’m a firm believer in things happening for a reason. I’ve told Allen Ray many times that he’s truly the lucky one, not only is he here, but he gets a second chance at life. He gets to confess, repent, and move on. We get to do that with him. Sometimes when God needs you to listen he puts us somewhere where we can. It is not fair to judge people by what you read. Only I know what happened, and have to live with it everyday of my life. It wasn’t what the media portrayed it to be or the state. I am holding myself accountable. So judge not, please… By the grace of God, I hope that none of you reading this, ever have a loved one go through this ordeal. Keep your sons and daughters safe! Teach them morals ~ beginning with the truth.

this is vile, disgusting, and bigoted, period.

Indeed it isShe seems to be of the belief that her brother’s “mistake” was one that was completely understandable.
And as what she would term a WOMAN, I find HER to be an utter disgrace of a human being as well as repulsive.

As much as I hate this page created by Anrade’s family/friendsPerhaps there is a third way to approach the issue,  instead of demanding it either stay or go.
Would putting it behind a password satisfy the trans-community, if none of Angie’s friends or family had to ever see it?
I know this is a lot to ask to accept, but it would be equivalent of putting it on IGNORE.

Andrade’s…..typo

And on top of that,she goes on and on about how terrible this whole experience has been for her brother.  I can think of a simple way he could have avoided all this “trauma”…

Look up the TOS bit again –If the Andrade family wants to host a site on their own server, they’re free to do so — currently, promotion of transphobic terrorist violence doesn’t get counted as “promotion of terrorism” in the U.S.  However, Myspace has terms of use, mostly related to preventing lawsuits and criminal charges against Myspace but also (as in their formal disallowing of hate groups) devoted to avoiding negative associations with the brand.  In signing up with Myspace, the Andrade family agreed not to use the service to promote hate, violence, and murder — an agreement which they then violated.  Compare this to PHB — hosted with a service that allows political speech and doesn’t hold the site manager responsible for comments, even when those comments defend the promotion of murder.

Exactly!There is a line that the Phelps clan could cross that would cause the FBI to seize their Web servers. But, they are very careful not to cross it.
Several hate sites that have advocated violence against specific targets have been taken down.

White’s Web site closed by FBI
Overthrow.com has been off-line since federal officials seized computer equipment.
By Laurence Hammack
Federal agents have reportedly seized computer equipment from a Roanoke-based white supremacy group, at least temporarily shutting down a Web site used to spout racist rhetoric.
Overthrow.com, which is run by William White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, has been off-line since last weekend.
According to White, FBI agents armed with a search warrant removed computers and other equipment early Saturday morning from a Patterson Avenue building that houses his Internet operation.
The raid marks the latest chapter in a long-running investigation of White’s online activities.
Although White and two other sources say a grand jury has been empaneled to hear testimony, any decision on whether to bring charges could be complicated by the fine line between free speech and criminal activity — a line that legal experts say White is adept at straddling.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/ro…

The problem with hate speechIs that while it violates MySpace TOS…it is still protected speech, sorry I know you are going to verbally assault me for that, but it is protected speech.  
Using speech to insight violence is pretty narrowly defined and is not protected, but that is something that has to be brought to court.
I agree that he shouldn’t be posting or have a cell phone…I agree he should be punished.  I did not find either site appropriate.  I do have to say that suppression of speech is a slippery slope, that I don’t think it is wise we even try.  More than anything I would guess that he or the family is probably baiting the community as a whole…

I tend to agree…Limiting speech can be dangerous and one must use great care in suggesting it.

I know you are going to verbally assault me…Don’t be a jerk. (Are you happy now?)
No one here is saying that hate speech isn’t protected here in the U.S.
If you read up through the thread, you will read that I wrote that freedom of speech doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences.
Do you think that being sued for slander or having the FBI seize your computer equipment for encouraging sedition is “suppression” of speech?
Autumn and no one else here is acting outside the law.
We know that if this family buys their own Web servers and creates a website there isn’t much we can do about it.
However, if they smuggle a cellphone to this murderer and let him post to their website, the FBI will come knocking on their door and bust them for criminal conspiracy.  

Which I tend to agree withI do not like hate speech either…It is concerning when people look towards some control of it. Mainly because it does begin to limit free speech and it can come back to bite everyone in the ass.  Promoting violence in speech…that is always tricky….it is usually not protected.
Yes I agree that the jail is messed up if he has a cell phone, and yes if he is using it to promote violence, then jail can be a family affair.
I am still not convinced this is all not a big bait to the community and that the when the attention dies so will the issue….although it is not inappropriate to notify MySpace or other sites for violations of TOS…
As for being a jerk…well you must know me

Seriously?I’ll do my homework on you if you do your homework and learn how to use a spell checker.
Sorry I confused you for the ignorant, rabid, hate-filled sister of a lowlife hate-crime murderer.  But I don’t recognize you as anybody to whom I’ve paid any attention to in the past, either.

STOP IT????Fritz, are you yelling at me? This is a new and exciting turn in our relationship.
I’m still uncomfortable with a test of whether something should be banned being whether the content

is about what a reasonable person finds to be offensive.

I don’t see that

this is something that is clearly over the line.

– either in terms of the specific case of Ms Zapata or in working out whether all or particular offensive speech should be banned.

You take this giant leap to say that this includes ALL comments that demean someone.

No, actually I asked a question. I do a bit of that to try to work out what I think. It’s a useful technique: take a general proposition and test it against some examples to see how it sits.
So, I could do the same thing with the other examples you raised. For instance:
Should someone be able to express the view that victims of rape, or a particular victim, asked for it? Well, it’s offensive and demeaning to the victim. It’s also stupid and lacking empathy and imagination. But would I ban it? No. Would I ban someone directly inciting people to rape a class of people or a particular person? Yes.
Would I prohibit a web page that expressed the view that the age of consent should be lowered to 10 years? It’s hurtful and distressing to people who were abused as children. But would I ban expression of the opinion? No, but I’d speak out about why it’s lunacy, and how hurtful it is. Would I ban someone inciting people to abuse children or a particular child? Of course.
I guess I just don’t see things as clearly as you Fritz and I want to ask and answer the questions for myself, and see what other people think. Does that mean that I

don’t understand the basic concept here

I don’t think so. If you mean to say that I don’t understand the basic point you’re making, again I don’t think so. I’m just more cautious and I think probably that I disagree with your basic proposition. Subject to further consideration of course.

What is wrong with you?

Oh Fritz, I’m sure I should know and I wish I could put my finger on it but I just get so flustered and overcome when you raise your voice in that terribly sexy way. Just give me a moment to clear my head and I’m sure it will come to me.

But as you noted belowas a private company, MySpace does have the right to censor certain speech, as any company does. The My Space Page was put up, a claim was made that it violated MySpace’s TOS agreements, MySpace agreed and pulled the page.
That’s the way the market works, I think. And companies censor forms of expression (i.e. dress codes) all of the time.

You argue good principles, but they collide with the factsAndrade’s page did not attempt a legal justification of his specific actions.  Nor did it advocate for abstract concepts (such as the notion that “the law should recognize a trans panic defense”, or that abortion constitutes murder, or that voluntary euthanasia does not).  In any of these cases, I would absolutely side with you that we were dealing with a matter of free speech – the advocacy of ideas, broadly, and/or their application to factual matters in the world.
Problem is, that’s not what we had here.  Instead, we had a convicted murderer’s barely-veiled attempt to argue that it was morally acceptable to kill his victim – with the assertion of moral legitimacy arising from the same personal characteristic that caused him to TARGET his victim, and made in a tone designed to inflict emotional torment on the victim’s loved ones and all who share her transgendered nature.
In other words, this was a targeted personal attack.  Granted, this alone would not remove it from First Amendment protection.  What takes it out of free speech is the sheer severity of its content, under the circumstances in which it was delivered, plus – and this is essential – the harmful intent clearly manifested in Andrade’s choice of phrasing.  It’s so severe as to be essentially a verbal assault – a tort effectuated by words.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m very much of the “sticks and stones” school (having been pelted with more than a few barbs myself).  It’s a rare statement indeed that falls out of protection this way.  But Andrade’s webpage is precisely that kind of sewer-diamond.  The general tone of the missive (including religious allusions) was an attempt to excuse Andrade for what he did, and even this would be protected free speech as the central human right to assert (even incorrectly) one’s own innocence or other lack of culpability.  But injecting the bit about “vaginas and fallopian tubes like GOD made them” turned a conceptual self-defense into a direct personal attack on Angie.
In essence, the contraposition of these two ideas, as deployed in the webpage, adds up to a very clear assertion that “it was OK for me to kill Angie because she was one of those weirdo trannies, not a real person with a Made By Jesus sticker on her bottom”.

WOWDidn’t even catch the “lucky one” bit before.
No shit, he’s the “lucky one”.  He didn’t have to bleed out in a fucking gutter on the way to a premature end.  He didn’t have to suffer the same fate HE GAVE HIS VICTIM.
For saying something that EVIL, I hope his sister develops a huge psychological complex around the act of starting her car.  Welcome to Belfast… every morning for the rest of your fucking life.

Threatening Behavior Not AllowedIt’s unclear whether or not you’re making the suggestion that someone should bomb her car like they bombed cars in Belfast, but it’s very, very inappropriate even to indirectly suggest it’s acceptable behavior.