Radio Host Is Arrested in Threats on 3 Judges

[tj2001]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — An Internet radio host known for his incendiary views was arrested Wednesday in North Bergen, N.J., after federal officials charged that his angry postings about a gun case in Chicago amounted to death threats against three judges.

In a case that tests the limits of free speech against hate speech, the Justice Department charged that the radio host, Hal Turner, had crossed the line.

Mr. Turner, regarded by civil rights monitoring groups as a white supremacist, an anti-Semite and a “maestro of radio hate,” posted commentaries on his Internet blog denouncing a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, that upheld two local bans on handguns.

“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed,” Mr. Turner wrote in a blog entry on June 2. “Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.”



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/us/25threat.html?ref=us

[JayMusgrove]

1. This will take off tomorrow. Right wing racists

Just what America needs these days.

Let's hope he has to spend a few nights in jail before being bailed out, or maybe hope he gets to spend a couple years in jail cause he can't make a million dollar bail.

[PNutt]

18. Perhaps........

The Grand Wizard.....Ole' Rupert Himself, along with The Unich, The Harold, and the Dill-Doe should share a cell with him for Dr. Tiller's murder.

[curiousdemo]

25. Yea, make an example out of him......

I know Sean Hannity is not happy. Put in a cell with a big strong convicted sexual molesting bull that's hungry for a fresh, soft, virgin butt such as this racist jerk. Good night sweet prince.....:spank:

[Best_man23]

2. Its about damn time

Now they should arrest his buddy, Sean Hannity.

He should be held on no bail, IMO he is a flight risk and likely to do an Eric Rudolph.

[Deja Q]

3. Not Rush Limbaugh's boil infested butt?

Oh well.

Maybe next week. :silly:

[DefenseLawyer]

4. Call me an absolutist

but he ought to be free to say whatever batshit crazy things he chooses.

[Texas Mom]

10. I'll just call you WRONG

When you start telling folks to kill federal judges and provide their addresses, pics, and maps, well that is a big no no. Especially in Chicago, where you may recall, a federal judge's husband and mother were murdered. Nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with inciting MURDER.

[DefenseLawyer]

13. I will simply disagree

I don't think anyone can be "incited" to murder. And yes I know there are laws in most places regarding inciting a riot and other similar acts. Frankly I am skeptical of all such laws. We all hear nutjobs make their nutjob decrees on a daily basis, yet none of us act upon them. Have you ever decided to kill someone based upon something you heard on the radio? Me either. Suggesting to no one in particular that someone "ought" to do something nutty shouldn't be a crime. Look if there are actual people who are actually planning to murder a judge, and he provided those actual people with material assistance (maps, addresses, etc.) then he is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and being an accessory if they act upon it. Otherwise he is just spouting off. I think it is his right to do so. I think it is far more dangerous to start jailing people for what they say. The problem is, once we establish the precedent that we will jail those who engage in "dangerous" speech, the people who get to define what is considered dangerous can change over time.

[griloco]

17. of your entire post

i agree only with the first three words.
In the former Yugoslavia, incitement came primarily in the form of direct orders from superior officers. In Rwanda, incitement was much broader and more public. Not only were lists of victims created, but Hutus disseminated hate messages and incited action against Tutsis through public speeches, public training of militia and radio messages. Radical Hutu elements organized large public gatherings, sang hate songs and rewarded those who killed Tutsis with drink or money.

http://clg.portalxm.com/library/keytext.cfm?keytext_id=178

[jpak]

47. Dumbest, Stupidest, Most Ignorant post ever

Ever heard of "mob mentality"??

Happened at old timey lynchings all the time.

Jail for this asshole...

[kestrel91316]

67. So I gather you won't be the least bit offended when I suggest that

someone should come to your home and kill you?

[DefenseLawyer]

70. I would be offended.

I would be concerned, but unless you actually threatened to come to my house and kill me or took steps to arrange for someone to come and kill me or provided material assistance to someone that actually wanted to come and kill me, I would say you are entitled to wish I were dead and express that opinion as often as you please.

[griloco]

80. how about

if i posted your face on line along with pictures of your house, your car,
your route to work, and then added you were in the witness protection program for
raping and killing three little girls and then sugggested someone ought to kill you.
still just "concerned"?
if that's not enough i could say you threatened to strike again unless you were castrated.
and, of course, i would be protected by the first amendment when you turned up in the
vienna boys choir

[DefenseLawyer]

83. Much of that would be slander.

The first amendment would not protect you. Very colorful scenario, however.

[griloco]

92. so sue me

but how does that stop some nutcase
from following up on what i incited him/her to do?
furthermore, i can follow up your civil suit with
"the government is persecuting me for exposing a
murderous pedophile. of course, if that child
murdering pedophile is dead, their is no plantiff
and the suit is dismissed"
and then show your picture,
address, workplace, wife, kids, dog, goldfish, and
marmot.

[No Elephants]

86. This guy did more than wish these guys dead and he knows it.

[No Elephants]

84. "Kill those men," when you know you influence people and nut cases listen to you

is not far from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It is highly likely to result in harm to specific, readily identifiable folks. The first amendment was never intended to be absolute. For instance, the Founders had no problem with Zenger getting arrested, only with prior restraints. This is not "nerely" hate speech. Speech tantamount to putting out a contract on three lives is not protected. And I am an abolutist.

When Rush Limbaugh or one of his colleagues starts yelling for your death or the death of your family, using your real name and your address is public record, you may have a different feeling.

[No Elephants]

85. Radio morons have indeed incited people to kill. Not

sane people, but the bullets of guns held by nutcases are just as deadly as any other bullets.

Maps? Addresses? That is what a criminal charge turns on? The victims here are judges. People can readily find out where they live or just go to the courthouse and kill them there.


And we already have a precedent for dangerous speech. Even though it was only a dictum, it nonetheless set the First Amendment standard for unprotected speech--yelling Fire! in a crowded theater.

[Somawas]

11. I, too, am an absolutist.

I read the words "no law abridging" to mean "no law abridging."

And thanks for standing up for the First Amendment. The First Amendment isn't about protecting speech you like. Its about protecting all speech. No matter how batshit crazy. Subject to the "speech brigaded with action" limitation of Brandenburg v. Ohio, of course.

[struggle4progress]

14. 18 USC 115(a) (1) Whoever ... (B) ... threatens ... a United States judge ... with intent to

retaliate ... on account of the performance of official duties ... (b) ... (4) ... shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or both ...

I remain unimpressed when an anonymous poster objects to a law against threatening judges

[DefenseLawyer]

16. You have to define threat a little more narrowly

in my opinion, in order for the law to be constitutional. A threat would be "Judge, once I get out of prison, I am going to find you and I am going to kill you." What douchebag said was "These judges deserve to be killed." It's reprehensible, but a threat? I don't think his crackpot opinion as to what they "deserve" is a threat. You may disagree, but that is why we have juries.

[shanti]

21. and that statement by him

"these judges deserve to be killed" is inciting violence by his followers. he's announcing it, for god's sake. it's not like just saying it to your buddy. one of his minion could take him up on it, might be his intention?

guess i'm not an absolutist.

[DefenseLawyer]

24. What "minions"?

Do you consider anyone who listens to his show (I assume he has a show) to be his "follower"? There seems to me to be quite a disconnect; he is sharing his reprehensible opinion with no one in particular. If there are specific people that he is conspiring with to kill a judge, prosecute. If he makes a direct threat to a judge, prosecute that too. I haven't seen either. Saying "I hope you die" on the radio should be protected speech.

[Bjorn Against]

26. He said a lot more than "I hope you die" he said they will die.

[DefenseLawyer]

30. But he didn't say he would kill them

He said they "deserve to die" and (if they get what they deserve) their blood will feed the tree or whatever nonsense it was. Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but I think restrictions on free speech should be exceedingly narrow and I think it is important enough to split hairs. I would assume that there are plenty of nuts who listen to this guy and agree with him that nonetheless have no plans to kill anyone. I don't see enough of a connection between his mouth and a specific threat. But we are free to disagree as it is out of our hands.

[Bjorn Against]

32. He said “Their blood WILL replenish the tree of liberty."

He didn't say it might happen, he said it will happen.

I agree that the restrictions on free speech should be extremely narrow, I am actually an activist who focuses a great deal of my work on free speech issues. I was just on here defending Bill O'Reilly's right to free speech a couple weeks ago after the Tiller assassination despite the fact that his words were absolutely despicable and many were calling for his prosecution. I will even defend the free speech rights of Nazis. I believe everyone is entitled to free speech no matter how despicable their views, but death threats cross a line in which there gets to be a serious threat to public safety. I am guessing if it was your name and address that Turner published and then suggested people should go out and kill you or your family you would probably feel a bit different about this.

[DefenseLawyer]

34. No actually.

I don't base my opinion on what constitutes free speech on how it would impact me personally. I didn't blame Ozzy Osborne's "Suicide Solution" for teenagers killing themselves, I didn't blame Catcher In The Rye for John Lennon's death, I don't blame idle chatter from a blowhard like Turner for some other kook deciding to use that idea as a ground for action. "Suggested" was the term you used. A suggestion isn't a threat, in my opinion, particularly a suggestion made generally to no one in particular. My position remains that he has the right to suggest whatever bullshit he wants. If someone chooses to follow his suggestion they are responsible for their own actions. Punish actions not ideas, even really really bad ideas.

[Bjorn Against]

36. Neither Ozzy Osborne nor J.D. Sallinger ever made a direct threat so that is a faulty comparison

I was talking about threats, I only used the word "suggested" once and you took it differently than I intended it. I am talking about making actual direct threats against an individual, that is a crime and that is what Turner did. You are trying to distract the issue by bringing up Ozzy who never said anything even remotely close to what Hal Turner said. Nowhere in Suicide Solution did he ever give the names and addresses of people that he thought should be killed. You are using false analogies.

[No Elephants]

88. Poor analogies. That's like saying you don't blame Jody Foster because a crazed fan

attempted assassination that he somehow associated with her If Jody had appealed to her fans to kill the President, that would be a much closer analogy.

[Bjorn Against]

22. I think what he said was a threat

He said "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty." He wasn't just saying this should happen, he was saying it will happen. That is a threat and that crosses the line of what the first amendment protects.

I tend to be a free speech absolutist as well, but death threats are one of the very few cases in which even I will acknowledge that the first amendment does not protect you. The first amendment protects virtually all public speech, but it does not protect incitement to violence. Turner's words contained a very specific threat and that is prosecutable because when you start telling a bunch of crazies in your audience to go out and commit murder you do put people's lives in danger and no one should have to go into hiding because a radio host is trying to convince people to murder them.

[DefenseLawyer]

28. As I said

That's why we have juries. I would need to see a specific threat of action by him "I'm going to kill you" to find it to be a threat. This seems to me to be "I hope someone kills you and if they do the world will be better off." I would defend the douchebag's right to say that.

[No Elephants]

89. I think he was putting out a contract, not threatening.

[struggle4progress]

29. Whoa! The goalposts just walked halfway down the field! A minute ago, the question

was whether Nutzo can say whatever he wants

Now it's whether a jury should decide if he actually made a threat

Juries are not exactly a new idea: most people are used to the idea, and one very seldom hears anyone advocate that they should be abolished -- so we're suddenly in agreement! Yay!

But if the goalposts walk back to where they were before, we'll be disagreeing again! Boo!

[DefenseLawyer]

31. I hate to break it to you

but your bullshitting on DU and my bullshitting on DU were never going to decide anything about the case. We're still disagreeing. ;-)

[struggle4progress]

33. Hmmm ... well ... OK ... maybe you know some funny lawyer jokes?

[DefenseLawyer]

35. They all seem to involve a brutal and untimely death

I don't find them funny at all!

[struggle4progress]

37. Since you wouldn't let me agree with you about the importance of juries, this old one came to mind:

Soon after the frontier town sprung up, a lawyer come along and hanged up his shingle. A couple a years goed by. One a hot summer day another lawyer come passing through and seed the shingle. So he stopped to ask how it all was in the town. The first lawyer allowed how he was the only lawyer there and hadn't been doing so all-fired great. Few days later, the new lawyer boughted hisself a place and hanged up his own shingle. And by Christmas they was both rich

[No Elephants]

99. And before that, there was no remedy for violation of civil rights, being killed by a drunk driver,

having a doctor remove your right leg when your left was gangrenous, etc.

Please don't fall for the propaganda about lawyers Republicans have been trying to implant for the last 20 or 30 years, any more than you would fall for their propaganda about professors (ivory tower academics) or smart people (intellectual elite), the liberal media or any other group. Whoever criticizes them gets smeared, period.

[kestrel91316]

68. But yet you see nothing wrong with calling for the deaths of judges.

Why do I find that so hysterically funny?

[DefenseLawyer]

72. Can none of you folks think in the abstract?

Damn. I have never said "I see nothing wrong with calling for the deaths of judges". For the record I am firmly against the killing of anyone, judges included. I'm just not sure "calling for the deaths" of judges is illegal. Threatening to kill a judge in retaliation or to impact the judges duties is a crime. Having a crackpot opinion that someone "should" kill judges seems to me more of an opinion than a threat. I think it is dangerous when we allow the authorities to arrest people for unpopular opinions. I only call for caution and a narrow interpretation of laws which impact the First Amendment. You don't see a danger there. You are just happy they arrested someone you don't like. That's fine.

[kestrel91316]

74. I guess we just have vastly different ideas of what constitutes

"shouting FIRE in a crowded theater".

[No Elephants]

96. Saying advocating for the murder of judges cannot be broadcast IS a very narrow

exception to protected speech. This guy knows that he is egging on gun toting nutcases. (And, before this becomes yet another incredibly boring gun thread, no, I am not implying that everyone who has a gun is a nutcase.) I have no problem infringing on that, even when the "inciter" is Democrat and the intended victim is "Republican."

[No Elephants]

87. It wasn't a threat to kill the judges. It was putting out a contract on the judges. It was the

equivalent of saying "I want for someone to kill these 3 judges." That's arrest worthy.

[griloco]

15. so

if the judges feel their lives are in danger,
can they then kill turner and claim self defense?

[Swagman]

27. OK- your'e an absolutist - but I reckon you are wrong

surely free speech should not included the incitement to murder ? But there are fine lines and it's worthy of discussion.

[Bette Noir]

39. Except for soliciting murder. Death threats are not protected speech.

[GinaMaria]

46. Free Speech is not an unlimited right

I used to laugh when right wingers would say 'there should be limits to free speech', because the truth is, there already are limits on free speech. This human right has boundaries. Slander, libel and calling for violence against someone (to name a few) are not protected. Most of the limits seem like a no brainers but for some it seems they need to do a bit of reading on their rights. Can't for the life of me imagine how Turner thought this was protected, or acceptable. What's wrong with him?

Hate speech cannot incite people like you to violence so it may be hard to understand that it can in others. It happens in people who already feel the same way and the inciting speech acts as validation for their point of view. It's the justification that occurs in their minds that pushes them cross the line. A justified killing doesn't seem like murder to the person committing the crime. As an absolutist and someone who likely is no where near the thought processes of someone who could be incited, this must seem like a very gray area. Think of the McCain/Pallin rallies during the election.... they were inciting violence, not by giving people a new ideas, but by playing on the validation and justification of ideas and feelings that were already there. Scary stuff.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

53. I guess another word for absolutist might be "ideologue"

In my opinion, all principles must be tempered by context.

[lumpy]

59. Excellent point! To quote "all principles must be tempered by

context". Thanks.

[DefenseLawyer]

61. I would submit it is the exact opposite

Ideology should have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting free speech. The fact that I abhor this cretin's ideology doesn't enter into it. The context, as you put it, should be a very narrow legal one: Was it a threat or simply an opinion? We can argue, it won't be for us to decide. My view is that a threat must be specific. This appears to me to be "wishful thinking" on the part of a nut. The fact that someone could listen to his opinion and act on it should not be punishable, in my opinion. Some can always find some excuse to act in what someone else has written or said. It is the person that acts who is responsible. Can we lock up Cheech and Chong because they have advocated using marijuana? Surely someone out there tried pot after watching Cheech and Chong. They are urging their "followers" to break the law. Even if Tommy Chong says "Hey everybody, go smoke pot right now!" No one has to do it. And if someone does and gets popped, he won't get very far trying to blame Mr. Chong.
I would construe any statute when punishes speech very, very narrowly, but that view has nothing to do with any ideology.

[No Elephants]

94. He was not arrested for being a Republican, but for putting out a contract.

Ideology has nothing to do with it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

57. If you're a defense lawyer, I'm Judge Judy.

What the hell? That was SO criminal it isn't even funny.

[DefenseLawyer]

63. It may be.

I am not as sure as you are. I would venture to guess that your lack of any doubt is based at least in part on the fact that you disagree with his politics. Saying that someone "deserves to die" isn't a threat. It's an opinion; a wish- albeit a demented one. I happen to think it is a close call, and I am going to continue to demand a very narrow interpretation of any law that seeks to abridge free speech. You are as certain as you are because you hate this guy- no offense to you astute legal analysis. That is SO criminal! Brilliant, Judy.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

66. How CONVENIENTLY you fail to mention the following sentences:

"These judges deserve to be killed"

"Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty."

"A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions."

FAIL.

[DefenseLawyer]

69. Wow. Giant font makes your position much more clear.

That is what he said. I don't think it makes it that much more clear or "SO criminal" to use your legal jargon. If he said or meant to say "These judges deserve to be killed. (And after I, or someone of my choosing, kills them) their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. (Therefore my killing them or helping a person of my choosing to kill them will have been) a small price to pay etc etc" I will agree with you that that is a threat. However if what he said or meant to say was "These judges deserve to be killed. (If someone decides to kill them and they get what they deserve) their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. (Therefore should someone do to these people what I think these people deserve it will have been) a small price to pay etc etc". That would still appear to me to be an opinion and not a threat. Frankly I don't think you can impute your interpretation on what he said any more than you can impute the second interpretation on what he said. The point is that is should be a very strict standard that we apply to these kinds of speech cases. And I happen to think it is a pretty close call here. But then my font isn't nearly as large as yours, so your analysis (if reprinting the quote in really big letters is an analysis) is probably correct.

[No Elephants]

95. Self delte.

[Ian David]

5. Hal Turner Turner Turner's going to jail jail jail! n/t

[No Elephants]

97. Well, to court, anyway. What will happen after that remains to be seen.

[Nickster]

6. Well, they sure waited long enough. I guess they figured that he wasn't going to really do anything

so they might as well take him down.

[uppityperson]

7. It will be interesting to see what happens. He also posted photos, contact info, etc..

"Mr. Turner also posted the judges’ photographs, phone numbers, work addresses and courtroom numbers. "

[ThirdWorldJohn]

8. HAha - Good friend of Sean Hannity - Yep Hannity lied and denied but look at the link.

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/23/neo_naziwhite_supremacist_hal_turner_confirms_friendship_and_kinship_with_sean_hannity.php

Neo Nazi/White Supremacist Hal Turner Confirms Friendship And Kinship With Sean Hannity

Earlier in the week, Sean Hannity denied, albeit in contradictory terms, ever having a relationship with neo Nazi/white supremacist Hal Turner. As I posted the night Hannity was confronted about Turner, the evidence conflicts with Hanniy’s claims. Now Turner has confirmed their friendship and their sympatico views in a blog post called, “About Sean Hannity and Me. . . . . Yes, we were friends and yes, Sean agreed with some of my views.” H/T Davefromqueens.
UPDATED: Comments received from someone claiming to be Hannity's Program Director

In his post (Warning: not for the faint of heart) that reveals just what kind of guy he is, Turner writes:

In my opinion, based on my first hand experience, I believe Sean Hannity is, in fact, a Hal Turner sort of guy. It seems to me that a big difference between Sean and me is that I am willing to say publicly what I think about savage Black criminals, diseased, uneducated illegal aliens and the grotesque cultural destruction wrought by satanic jews while Sean and many others keep quiet to protect their paychecks.

We have cited many times an article in The Nation as evidence that Turner and Hannity were palsy. In his post, Turner calls the author, Max Blumenthal, a “douche bag sodomite,” but Blumenthal’s account is essentially confirmed by Turner’s:

I was quite disappointed when Sean Hannity at first tried to say he didn't know me and then went on to say that I ran some senate campaign in New Jersey. In fact, Sean Hannity does know me and we were quite friendly a number of years ago.

…When Hannity took over Bob Grant's spot on 77 WABC in New York City, I was a well-known, regular and welcome caller to his show. Through those calls, Sean and I got to know each other a bit and at some point, I can't remember exactly when, Sean gave me the secret "Guest call-in number" at WABC so that my calls could always get on the air.

When I utlized that call-in number, Sean would very often come onto that line during commercial breaks so we could chat before I went on the air. Our off-the-air chats grew to an exchange of other phone numbers, me giving Sean my home and cellular number and Sean giving me his direct dial-in number at Fox News channel.

In 1993, My wife got pregnant and around a month later, Sean reported that he and his wife were expecting their first child. We got to talking about things expectant dads talk about and the relationship grew.

…Over the course of the next three or four years, Sean and I spoke regularly off the air about our kids, politics and news of the day. My on-air calls to his show remained regular and welcome

<snip>

[lumpy]

60. Re. Hannity/ Turner. Hahaha, we can only hope guilt by

association will bite Hannity on the butt leaving a painfull wound.

[glinda]

9. There is a Santa Claus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the safety of the people, whose lives have been threatened, I wish them safety and peace. This is about time.

[konnichi wa]

12. The "line" is extremely subjective and is located right where the most influential people

want it to be at any given time.


What ever happened to "I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it"?

[Bjorn Against]

23. Doesn't apply to death threats

I will defend the right to express any political opinion you want to express, but the moment you cross the line into making death threats you no longer have the right to say it. Death threats are one of the few forms of speech that the first amendment does not protect because if death threats were legal people would be afraid to leave their homes and would be forced to go into hiding because there would be radio talk show hosts encouraging their listeners to kill them. Death threats constitute a very real threat to public safety and that is why they are one of the few forms of speech that is not protected.

[The Wizard]

19. Every violence promoting hate monger

that gets removed from the landscape makes us more civilized.
Republican fundamentalists and normal people are like oil and water, they don't mix.

[DefenseLawyer]

20. So when the authorities decide that posting to DU

is violence promoting hate mongering will you go quietly when they "remove you from the landscape"?

[The Wizard]

44. You're making loose associations(NT)

[DefenseLawyer]

52. I'm not making any associations at all.

The point is, it is all well and good to cheer for the arrest of someone for saying something we find reprehensible. The problem arises at some point in the future when a new set of people are controlling our government and they have a very different idea about what kind of speech is "dangerous". But but but that's absurd! No one could equate having liberal ideas with right wing nuts espousing violence. Sure they could. In a heartbeat. And they would use the same precedent that you are cheering for now to lock you up. If this man threatened someone, that is a crime. It can be debated. My only point is we need to very narrowly define what constitutes a threat and what constitutes espousing a crazy opinion. We certainly shouldn't be cheering for the latter.

[ima_sinnic]

45. please post links to DU posts calling for people's deaths & giving directions to their homes

you haven't noticed an uptick in rw nutjob hate killings (e.g., Dr. Tiller)?
we can't "do anything" about incitement to murder besides wring our hands and say, oh that's too bad but "freedom of speech" is a sacred cow? all we can do is sit idly by as the armed crazies triple-dare each other to increasingly brash action? whatever.

[fascisthunter]

50. please point to a direct threat to someone's life

you won't find one...

[struggle4progress]

54. You might enjoy reviewing the DU rules:

How We Enforce The Discussion Forum Rules >> Content >> Disruption and Inappropriate postings

... Do not post messages that advocate harm or death to anyone ... Do not post personal information about any other person ... You may post the public contact information for public figures, but you may not post anyone's private information without their consent ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[DefenseLawyer]

62. Way to totally miss the point.

I'm not accusing anyone on DU of threatening anyone or being the equivalent in any way of a nut like this Turner fellow. The point is that when we arrest people or saying things we don't like, we run the risk that some day the authorities will decide that they don't like what we say, that liberal message boards are too dangerous and start arresting people using the same rational we now cheer to punish "hate speech".

[The Wizard]

64. You can go to a fire and yell theater all day long

Willfully and knowingly inciting crimes is another story. There are real victims because the weak minded and those prone to violence take their lead from scumbags like Turner.
Since Turner's fanatical screeds crossed state lines he exposed himself to federal laws.

[No Elephants]

93. Go to a fire and yell theater all day long. Great line. Kudos!

[struggle4progress]

65. Compare the rules I posted with the allegations regarding Turner:

Internet postings lead to gun-loving supremacist
Baltimore News.Net
Thursday 25th June, 2009
... Turner had allegedly posted words and a map on the Internet saying: "Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed." The posting also included a map leading the way to the Federal Courthouse, where the three judges sit. Another map, allegedly showing the judges homes, was also found in the raid. The posting also referred to the murder of the mother and husband of Chicago-based federal Judge Joan Lefkow in February 2005. Turner’s posting read: "Apparently, the 7th US Circuit Court didn't get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed" ... http://www.baltimorenews.net/story/511641

[Zorra]

71. Actually, didn't Turner plainly and publicly conspire to commit murder?

He's obviously requesting that someone in his audience murder these judges, and is providing specific information for the purpose of aiding in the perpetration of these murders.

It seems to me that the law is obligated to investigate Turner, and that this is no simple, harmless "off the cuff" DU remark about torches and pitchforks.

[DefenseLawyer]

75. There has to be an agreement between two or more people

to constitute a conspiracy. His suggestion to one one in particular that "someone" should act would not be a conspiracy. I never tried to equate any remark made on DU as being similar at all to what Turner said, off the cuff or otherwise. I am only pointing out the danger in suppressing unpopular speech and broadly defining what constitutes dangerous illegal speech, given that someday crazy fascists could be in charge and decide that posting left of center remarks is dangerous speech. I am obviously the only one who has these concerns so I am going to just leave it at that.

[No Elephants]

100. No one has to agree before you can be arrested for attempting to convince someone to commit murder.

[No Elephants]

98. Nah. Everyone knows the most Dems do is bloviate. Look at Congress.

[Bette Noir]

38. This is a different guy, not the one arrested a couple of weeks ago?

[ck4829]

42. Same guy

"Three weeks ago, in a case still pending, state officials in Connecticut charged Mr. Turner with inciting violence against lawmakers involved in an unrelated decision involving the Roman Catholic Church."

From the same source.

[greengestalt]

40. What about Michael Savage?

Frankly, all these guys need to go.
They should face their worst nightmare: "The Fairness Doctrine". And worse: AntiTrust laws.


These people that sling hate have no competition other than who spews the most hick-pleasing, reactionary-provoking, lunatic-provoking bile. Clear Channel owns too many radio stations, in many small towns all of them. The radio runs the same "Paylist" so vapid and boring you can set your watch to it, the AM band is on the Hate speech pausing only on sunday for the Right Wing Christian speech. It's a constant stream of propaganda lies. I'm not even calling them "Liars" they love to challenge (and sue) people on that. The "Truth", used properly, is the best lie.


We need to start organizing to get these people off the air.


1. Monopoly laws. A "Monopoly" is not 100% of the market. A Monopoly can be as low as 17% of a market, whatever is enough to unfairly influence prices of goods or services beyond the "Free trade" laws of supply and demand. When it becomes nearly impossible for groups like "Adbusters" to get their ads on the airtime, despite raising good money to do so, there is a big "Monopoly" afoot.

Break up monopolies. If they have 100% market share in a town, force selling/closure of these media outlets. The 'alternative' would be a state-run TV/Radio/newspaper that offers open ended advertising (well, bare decency and legality, but no censoring otherwise) of anything anyone's willing to pay for the space for. Journalists should be able to express themselves freely and have no payback for personal opinions.

2. Bookstores. I have a real pet peeve with what I see in the bookstores. The national chain bookstore/coffeshop is primarily a "Liberal" hangout, yet I see tons of right wing hate speech in piles there, along with "Christian" stuff. It doesn't sell. It gathers dust. I think it's some kind of pathetic "Propaganda" tool by the elites to try to convince us there's anything other than 'wanna-be Mein Kamph" in any of their words. One time I had a clerk looking up selling statistics for books and his manager stopped me... Really creepy. But I saw a few of the "National Bestseller" titles and they'd barely sold any copies, despite being up front and packed to the ceiling. And my town is technically a fairly strong "Red" area, btw.


Organize and get the managers to pull the Savage, the Coulter, the Limbaugh, the "PIG Guides" the "Christian" section... Make it clear that their core profits come from you, not from "Joe Six-Pack" who isn't going to pay the price of a case of beer for something he hears on the radio everyday anyways.


I'm for "Free Speech" but it's time to be militant about ours, not just go "You have a point..." when a right winger screeches hatred for half an hour in our faces, or several decades in this case. I'm sick of the "Liberal = weak" stereotype, it's time to prove it's the opposite. I'm not for "Actually" banning the books, they can still buy them from the Internet, like Amazon dot com. If they can order "Tubgirl" (a) from the internet, they should be allowed to order Ann Coulter from the internet.


3. Fairness doctrine/Media Carta... The public voice has been stolen, not so much by the "Right Wing" but by the "Monied Interests". We need to get it back. We need a public voice, not just blogs on the net, we need news that competes, not cooperates. And we need far less "Right wing hate speech" voices to inspire another extremist to an act of murder and more "Progressive" voices for change and the betterment of mankind.


(a) - In case you don't know, "Tubgirl" is the American name for a Japanese "alternative romance" film. Look it up in Google, turn off "Safe search" it's "Family friendly and work safe!" - hehehehe --- Assuming your workplace is having a "Post office style Job Complaint" being filed and your family is like the Manson clan.

[The Second Stone]

41. Soliciting for murder is not protected speech

and never has been. It isn't legal for a mafia don to say Johnny The Snake is a stone in my shoe and I would like it if he was killed cuz he's a rat, but it isn't a crime because I won't pay for this murder, and it isn't protected for Turner to solicit murder either. It looks to me like Turner is soliciting murder and a jury should decide. The solicitation laws are not aimed at political speech, they are aimed at stopping specific murders. And when it is a close call, a jury will protect speech, but not solicitation for murder. Oh, and I think Bill O'Reilly took the same sort of actions to solicit the murder of Dr. Tiller and if a grand jury agrees, he can be indicted and a jury can decide.

Solicitation of murder is a crime.

[Strong Atheist]

91. Belated Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[No Elephants]

101. +1 as to Turner.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

43. Sean hannity and his radical associations again

Google this guy's name with sean's, you'll find tons of stuff on their long and intimate relationship
the nation had a great piece a while back.

[Paladin]

48. DU Gun Militants: Consider Once Again The Sort Of Company You're Keeping

And kindly spare us any further claims that the gun rights cause is in fact a liberal notion. The furthest, extreme edges of the right wing co-opted the issue decades ago. And endlessly blaming Democrats for that situation doesn't cut it, either.......

[fascisthunter]

49. well said

[fascisthunter]

51. threatening someone's life is not protected under Free Speech

[lisa85]

55. one down. n/t

[Demeter]

56. Mr. Turner Has that Blood Thing Ass-Backwards

The quotation is:


"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

by:

Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

[lumpy]

58. The hate monger has been arrested and the Justice Dept.

has determined that his comments amount to death threats against 3 judges so all that is left is for the courts to decide the outcome. "Free speech" has become an excuse for inflamatory hate mongering. Insidious. Gnarly.

[AKing]

73. Reporting from Chicago: Bail Has Been Denied for Hal Turner.....

Let this be a lesson to the rest of the right wing kooks

[griloco]

76. i don't understand

who would be making the decision to
deny him bail?
when i think about it it was probably
Obama or Pelosi or Reid

[Bjorn Against]

77. That is ridiculous, Obama, Pelosi and Reid have bigger things to worry about than Hal Turner

[AKing]

78. Try a US Magistrate,troll

[griloco]

79. you mean

like a judge? someone from the very class
of people turner threatened? i would think
someone like that would just let bygones be bygones.
no, i'm sure it was Obama/Pelosi/Reid. they're
responsible for every evil in the world including
the flat tire i got yesterday.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

81. Do you like Western movies?

There's one with Val Kilmer and Kurt Russell I like a lot. It's about Wyatt Earp.

[griloco]

82. i knew it!!!

Obama/Pelosi/Reid shot doc holiday!

[Paladin]

90. I Think One Of Our Posters Better Get Busy.

I mean, no bail for somebody merely spewing exactly as he pleases over the public airwaves, consequences be damned? This poor guy needs representation right now---give him a no-bail release and a lollypop as he walks out....


(Sarcasm alert, for those who invariably need it....)