Internet radio host Hal Turner charged with inciting violence

LostinKildare

From the Hartford Courant:

Internet radio host Hal Turner — accused of inciting Catholics to "take up arms" and singling out two Connecticut lawmakers and a state ethics official on a website — was taken into custody in New Jersey late Wednesday after state Capitol police in Connecticut obtained a warrant for his arrest.

Turner, who has been identified as a white supremacist and anti-Semite by several anti-racism groups, hosts an Internet radio program with an associated blog. On Tuesday, the blog included a post that promised to release the home addresses of state Rep. Michael Lawlor, state Sen. Andrew McDonald and Thomas Jones of the State Ethics Office.

"Mr. Turner's comments are above and beyond the threshold of free speech," Capitol Police Chief Michael J. Fallon said in an e-mail announcing the warrant. "He is inciting others through his website to commit acts of violence and has created fear and alarm. He should be held accountable for his conduct."

The remarks on the blog were a reaction to the recent controversy over a bill that would have changed the way the Roman Catholic Church is governed, taking power away from church officials and turning it over to lay members. It was pulled in mid-March following an outcry from Catholics across the state and questions about its constitutionality.

Last week, the controversy flared again when the Diocese of Bridgeport filed a federal lawsuit against state ethics officials, who are investigating whether church officials violated lobbying laws by organizing a rally at the state Capitol to protest the measure earlier this spring and not registering as lobbyists.

The blog of the "Turner Radio Network" recounted the matter, then included the following remarks in a section labeled "commentary:"

"It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals personally. These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die."

And, the post continued, "If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this, I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down, too."

<snip>

The blog said the "Hal Turner Show" would publicize the home addresses of the Connecticut officials Wednesday night, but Turner, 47, of North Bergen, N.J., was taken into custody before that could happen.

Turner was charged in the warrant with inciting injury to persons or property and will be presented in a New Jersey courthouse today for extradition to Connecticut. It is unclear when that would happen.
<snip>

From Wikipedia, some similar statements he's made in the past:

In 2005, Turner publicized the names of three federal court judges who handled lawsuits involving [white separatist] Matt Hale. Turner posted the judges' names and addresses on his Web site.

On December 6, 2006, Turner announced on his website:

"We may have to ASSASSINATE some of the people you elect on Nov. 7! This could be your LAST ELECTION CHANCE, to save this Republic... Sorry to have to be so blunt, but the country is in mortal danger from our present government and our liberty is already near dead because of this government. If you are too stupid to turn things around with your vote, there are people out here like me who are willing to turn things around with guns, force and violence. We hope our method does not become necessary."

Since the announcement was made, Turner has had difficulties finding a host for his website. He alleged that his website has been the target of denial of service attacks, and subsequently filed a pro se lawsuit.

On April 4, 2008, Turner encouraged violence against Lexington, Massachusetts school superintendent Paul Ash for establishing a new curriculum supporting gays and lesbians. On his website, he stated:

"I advocate parents using FORCE AND VIOLENCE against Superintendent Paul B. Ash as a method of defending the health and safety of school children presently being endangered through his politically correct indoctrination into deadly, disease-ridden sodomite lifestyles."

He went on to provide Ash's personal information, including his address.

It will be interesting to see how the case will proceed. Thoughts?

jank

What a nutcase! I this the same guy who appeared on Fox news back in october slating Obama with Hannity?

LostinKildare

Quite possibly. He has a past association with Hannity. From Wiki:

Turner reportedly established a friendship with Sean Hannity, on whose program he was a frequent presence. However, when confronted by the New Black Panther Party's Malik Zulu Shabazz about his association with Turner (in light of Hannity's scrutiny of Barack Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright), Hannity at first denied knowing Turner, then said he had banned Turner from his radio station, and that he never supported Turner's views. Turner subsequently posted this response on his website: "I was quite disappointed when Sean Hannity at first tried to say he didn't know me. In fact, Sean does know me and we were quite friendly a few years ago."

This 2005 profile of Turner from the Nation details the relationship between Turner and Hannity.
"Hannity's Soul-Mate of Hate"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal

derry

LostinKildare wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how the case will proceed. Thoughts?

Man what a whimpy post " thought " like why dont you come out fighting with some opinion like this guy is wrong and should go to jail or this guy is correct to use his first ammmendment and feck the begrudgers.

Reality is the USA has the first ammmendment and in theory the guy should be allowed to say anything he like from devil worship to bible thumping to race hate whatever.The public can chose to ignore his blog as that is what fee speech means

There already exists in the USA rules about supplying information for the potensial murder of USA state officials or citizns .If you say here is the address of so and so and murder the guy then you atomatically are party to a attempted murder consiprasy even if you dont know the potensial people who may or may not conduct the murder attempt.

So it is clear the USA government is attempting to trim down the limits of the 1st ammendment to the point if you say anything more than "hello" or " how is the weather" you exceeeded the limits of free speeech.


Already in the USA they stop free speech with the free speech zones some car park in nowhere ville away from the town as the only place you may protest on a subject and express free speech .If your protest is government approved you can get the liccence to to demonstrae in the city center but if not well its car park nowhere ville in free speech is the only place to protest and if you dont comply its a fine or prison .

It is clear the USA wants to stop all free speech so they might even have hired this guy to say absurd stuff so as to make a case and then use a win in this case to ban free speech.Next after that if you say the bible says that homosexuals go to hell you up on free speech violations and you might have even have to ban the bible.

It might also be the guy has chosen to say the most absurd things to create a trial case and show up the contraints the USA government is doing to kill free speech in the USA which as he rightly points out is against the USA contitution and therefore the USA government is the illegal party trying to limit free speech .

Thin end of wedge stuff and the end of it is clear who will judge the limits of free speech will they be god fearing bible thumpers who could jail you for premoting non bible ideas or hells angels who want you to shut your mouth if you see wanton state or non state crime going on in your face and calling the police to report a crime is exceeding the limits of free speech

Derry

Overheal

derry wrote: »

Reality is the USA has the first ammmendment and in theory the guy should be allowed to say anything he like from devil worship to bible thumping to race hate whatever.The public can chose to ignore his blog as that is what fee speech means

/FBI agent walks into a Starbucks

"Yes, Ahmed. You will fly the plane. Hassiv will secure coach. The flight leaves in one hour"

FBI Agent goes "Stop RIGHT THERE"

"What, what? We're just talking. Freedom of speech and all of that, you filthy jew."

"Ah ha ha. All right, you little scamp. Carry on. But if I find out you hijacked a plane this afternoon, you'll be sorryyyy "

There already exists in the USA rules about supplying information for the potensial murder of USA state officials or citizns .If you say here is the address of so and so and murder the guy then you atomatically are party to a attempted murder consiprasy even if you dont know the potensial people who may or may not conduct the murder attempt.

So it is clear the USA government is attempting to trim down the limits of the 1st ammendment to the point if you say anything more than "hello" or " how is the weather" you exceeeded the limits of free speeech.

Champ, there have been limitations on free speech, pretty much since the beginning. Hate Speech, for example. Thats a big one. Hate speech really frowned upon. Go ahead and wiki the first amendment.

It has everything to do with public order, not subjugation. Relax.

LostinKildare

To bring this thread up to date:

Turner was again arrested, on 24 June -- this time by the FBI -- and charged with the federal crime of "threatening to assault and murder three U.S. judges with intent to retaliate against such judges on account of the performance of official duties." The judges had upheld a local Chicago handgun ban.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/06/25/neo-nazi-hal-turner-arrested-again/

The criminal complaint (warning: pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/06/turn.pdf) quotes Turner's posts:

All the years of peaceful legal challenges . . . only to have it all thrown in the trash by three Appellate Judges in a manner so sleazy and cunning as to deserve the ultimate response.

This is what happens folks, when YOU play by the rules. Government does not. . . .

The government -- and especially these three Judges -- are cunning, ruthless, untrustworthy, disloyal, unpatriotic, deceitful scum. Their entire reason for existing is to accrue unto themselves, power over everything.

The only thing that has ever stood in the way of their achieving ultimate power is the fact that We the People have guns. Now, that is very much in jeopardy.

Government lies, cheats, manipulates, twists, and outright disobeys the supreme law and founding documents of this land because they have not, in our lifetime, faced REAL free men willing to walk up to them and kill them for their defiance and disobedience.

Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, told us "The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." It is time to replenish the tree!

Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.

This is not the first politically motivated trash to come out of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. . . .

[Turner then discusses the 2005 case of the white supremacist Matt Hale, whom the court ruled against in a trademark case. When Hale tried to solicit (from an undercover FBI agent, whoops!) the murder of the Chicago judge, Joan Lefkow, he was convicted and jailed. But Turner (among others) posted the names, photos, and addresses of Lefkow and other judges on the case, and shortly thereafter a gunman murdered Lefkow's husband and mother in her home]

Apparently, the Seventh U.S. Circuit court didn't get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed.

These Judges are traitors to the United States of America. . . .

If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving, other Judges will act the same way.

These Judges deserve to be made an example of to send a message to the entire judiciary: Obey the Constitution or die.

Turner updated his post ("Behold the devils") with the names, photos, work address, and room numbers of the three judges, and a photo and map depicting the federal building where they work, with arrows pointing to the "anti-truck bomb barriers."

The FBI complaint also details Turner's threats against some other judges earlier this year. And, interestingly, under FBI questioning:

Turner told Special Agent Wallschlaeger that he did not intend to injure the judges but believed he would be criminally responsible if someone reading his website acted on what he posted to his website.

Derry you wrote

derry wrote: »

Man what a whimpy post " thought " like why dont you come out fighting with some opinion like this guy is wrong and should go to jail or this guy is correct to use his first ammmendment and feck the begrudgers.

No, I don't believe that Turner's speech is protected under the First Amendment. Offensive speech, yes, "hateful" speech, okay (holding my nose), but calling for the murder of specific targets and providing the necessary information to accomplish it? No.

Nor do I agree with your view that this is part of a government conspiracy to strip the citizenry of free speech rights. Paranoid.

You could make the argument that Turner didn't outright say "kill them" -- if his defense goes that route then it will be a test case that hopefully will clarify the boundaries of what constitutes "express advocacy of unlawful killing." There are some rightwing media hacks making a tidy fortune spewing hatred (e.g., Bill "I-didn't-call-him-Tiller-the-Baby-Killer" O'Reilly) who might benefit from knowing where the boundary lies.

See:

Traditionally, the courts have given wide latitude to First Amendment rights, even in cases involving speech that is widely considered offensive, but public statements regarded as “true threats” have not been afforded legal protection. One key test case came in 2002, when a federal appeals court in California upheld a $109 million jury verdict against organizers of an anti-abortion Web site that distributed Wild West-style wanted posters of abortion providers, with photos of dead doctors crossed out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/us/25threat.html?scp=3&amp;sq=hal turner&amp;st=cse

sceptre

derry wrote: »

There already exists in the USA rules about supplying information for the potensial murder of USA state officials or citizns .If you say here is the address of so and so and murder the guy then you atomatically are party to a attempted murder consiprasy even if you dont know the potensial people who may or may not conduct the murder attempt.

So it is clear the USA government is attempting to trim down the limits of the 1st ammendment to the point if you say anything more than "hello" or " how is the weather" you exceeeded the limits of free speeech.

So you don't think it meets the clear and present danger requirement as defined by Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919 (the case is Schenck v. United States)? Because if it does, that's hardly a new development or inconsistent with the old one.

In case you're not familiar with the decision, here's the precise quote:

Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919 wrote:

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Incidentally, the opinion of Holmes in that case is also the basis for the example of the restriction on shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

Do you think it's preferable, as Overheal asked, for the krazee kids to go and kill someone and then try to figure out if a shockjock's tirade that these people have to be stopped (and here are their addresses people) contributed in any way? Or more pointed again, if someone encouraging the group to go and maim and kill walks away entirely because they were just words?

It's silliness like that that has caused parts of the first amendment to be eaten away at times, even more so than the presumed desire of the government to control all. You may well have a point with the free speech zones but taking what appears to be an absolute approach on free speech at all costs means that even that point gets ignored by people like me, who are ardent supporters of the free expression of opinion, as opposed to allowing every man jack to encourage others to faster pussycat, kill kill.