Internet radio host and blogger Hal Turner has been arrested and is facing changes for threatening three judges in a post concerning their ruling on a gun control issue. In addition, he was denied bail after being deemed ‘too dangerous to remain free’ by the presiding judge.
But it brings up, again, the fact of the coarsening of political debate in the age of the Internet. According to Turner’s attorney he never told anyone to go out and kill and therefore the prosecutor overreacted.
The arrest and case are being managed by the now semi-famous US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald
But what is the limitation on political speech in a medium where hyperbole and shouting are the name of the game. I’d say most of us would agree with the statement that many normally reasonable people take advantage of the anonymity of the Internet to express opinions that would normally be moderated by the fear of societal…feedback. Whether meant in earnest or not many people are far more extreme online than they would be in formal debate.
For me, if the allegations are true, and I have no more information than that outlined in the linked story, I think the arrest and prosecution are valid. I, even though a strong advocate for freedom of expression, have never held that such violent speech and encouragement of violence were worthy of protection.
But I might be wrong. And I wouldn’t mind hearing your opinions on the subject.
I think one of the key points here is that he has a radio show with a receptive audience. If I (not you, you happen to be in a similar position), say, were going “You know, it would be nice to kill a judge. If anyone’s interested, here’s directions to his house, and hey, here’s how to dodge the bomb barriers.” it would be considerably more dubious than this. Hal has followers. When he goes 'Will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest? Here. This guy. Here. Go get him, guys." there are actually guys who might do this.
I think the key precidents here are the cases where anti-abortion protestors place the address of abortion doctors on their websites. Where’s the limitations on that?
I’d have more respect for him if he had enough backbone to go do it himself. But no, he wants to incite someone else to do it, and then say he isn’t responsible. So he says who to kill and where to find them. He is beneath contempt. He is a coward. Lock his ass up.
…criminal law
, the request, encouragement, or direction of one person by another to commit a serious criminal offense. It is frequently linked with the crime of incitement. An inciter is generally one who is present at the scene of the offense and who encourages the principal offender to commit an act that he is already inclined to commit on his own. A…
In reversing the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who gave a speech warning “that there might have to be some revengeance taken” for “continued suppression of the white, Caucasian race,” the Court held that the First Amendment allows punishment only of subversive advocacy calculated to produce “imminent lawless action” and which is likely to produce such action. Thus, Brandenburg brings together the incitement test urged by Hand and the “clear and present danger” test urged by Justices Holmes and Brandeis in their famous dissents in the 20s. The Court applied its Brandenburg analysis four years later in Hess v Indiana to reverse the conviction of a demonstrator who was overheard by a police officer to say, “We’ll take the fucking street later.” The Court also failed to find the Brandenburg test satisfied in NAACP v Clairborne Hardware (1982). The Court found First Amendment protection for the NAACP’s practice of writing down names of blacks who violated a boycott of certain white businesses, and then reading them aloud at NAACP meetings. The Court also found constitutional protection for the statement, “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re going to break your damn neck.” The Court said the statement fell short of a direct threat or ratification of violence.
*
It looks like this asshole is safe, because he spewed his glurge on show, and not right at the courthouse in front of an angry mob.
It’s not just “Hate Speech”. If he’d said “These judges need to be protested/voted out/impeached” OR EVEN if he said “Some judges need to be removed… by any means possible” without any identifiers, that would be one thing. But there’s no defending this!
If the law covers it, then he is guilty. If he is proected under the free speech laws, then he is “innocent”. Either way, he is no good.
It’s one thing to say “fire the bums”, or “impeach that guy”. It’s a whole different thing to say “These specific people should be killed and here’s where to find them”. Law or no law, that’s disgusting.
His fans include Sean Hannity. He was a friend and frequent guest on Hannity’s radio show, and Hannity supported Turner’s unsuccessful bid for Congress.
I wonder if Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founders knew that absolutely everything they ever said would, in 200-so years, be taken out of context by whackos to legitimize their irrational hatred.
I also wonder what they would have thought about frozen yogurt.
Mr. Moto, apparently, he’s fed a couple of his followers to the FBI before they took action, previously. This suggests that he has followers who might take action on other things he does.
Oh, no doubt. But I think the operative thing here are the threats - not necessarily the presence of people to carry them out. That can’t be quantified sometimes.
You seemed to imply that just spouting off on the internet would be just hunky-dory to the Feds - we have seen countless stories to indicate that this likely isn’t true. The threat would be investigated at the least, and might be prosecuted.
The FBI seems to have a keen interest in hate groups. If this is an ongoing thing, I hope they’ve been watching and collecting their evidence, getting ready to file charges on him. I’m all for free speech, but advocating murder and telling the kooks where to go is way beyond that.
If yelling fire in a theater is illegal, then dammit saying “kill those guys” should be too, no matter how it is “weasel worded”.
To me, saying “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed,” is the same as saying “kill them all”.