Defending Hal Turner's Right To Be A Knucklehead

(AP Photo/Jessica Hill)

Earlier this summer, Hal Turner blogged that three federal judges who rejected a National Rifle Association bid to overturn a couple of handgun bans "deserve to be killed." The next day, he followed up with another post including photos of the judges - Frank Easterbrook, Richard Posner and William Bauer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit - as well as a map of the courthouse where they worked and the location of anti-truck bomb barriers. "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions," Turner wrote.

Now he is in jail awaiting trial.

Sunday's Washington Post features a must-read piece detailing the Turner case and the attendant First Amendment questions it is going to raise. This is one of those cases guaranteed to test garden-variety lefties and free-speechers. Does the law extend to protecting a right-wing shock jock who declares that a judge ought to be assassinated? Should it? (Even odder, Turner apparently worked as an FBI informant in the past, an affiliation which his attorney says "resulted in numerous lives being saved and sophisticated military hardware from being placed into the black market.")

Martin Garbus, an attorney who has signed on to defend Turner, believes there's a convincing argument to be made that, when all is said and done, Turner still is entitled to First Amendment legal protection. But this is not going to be easy for Garbus, who in the same breath, acknowledges being conflicted.

"Do we have to wait until a murder attempt actually gets underway? Does existing First Amendment law have to be changed, and does there have to be a law that more particularly deals with "true threats"? There are an increasing number of threats that emanate from right-wing radio, television hosts and bloggers, now presenting important First Amendment issues anew. Whichever case goes to the United States Supreme Court will undoubtedly create new law. Nothing has happened to the three judges, although we cannot assume something will not happen. For me, this is a very troublesome and difficult case."

No kidding. The U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald in this instance, - he also was the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame affair - is a hard nose type who has reason to take threats against judges seriously. In 2005, a litigant whose medical malpractice lawsuit was dismissed murdered the husband and mother of U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow, who he also intended to kill.

If you're looking for a legal precedent that might help Turner's chances, Doug Mataconis brings up Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case where the Supreme Court overturned a Ku Klux Klan speech conviction. Maybe Turner's lawyers will argue that the same legal standard set down by the Supremes should extend to their client. For that matter, they might as well also make the point that the law protects Turner's right to be a knucklehead. "He was just spouting, right?" But is it still hyberbole when you publish a map to the court house where anyone reading his blog could find judges who "deserve to be killed?" Or does that cross a verbal red line that should earn the author a prison term? Your turn to weigh in below.

[The_Common_Man]

Like our founding fathers Hal Turner does not bow to King George. He merely speaks the truth and limp-wrist ed imbeciles hate hearing it. Unlike worthless cowardly busybodies. Hal Turner actually does things, he has held numerous public rally's after which the crime rate in those cities due to a fear of lynching suddenly diminished. Hal warns, not threatens savages and corrupt politicians. We do have the right to overthrow our government again as we did in 1776. In Knoxville Hal warned the savages that we would resume lynching's if they did not reign in their criminal hoodlums. Also in Kingston NY and numerous other cities around the U.S..
After the gruesome torture/rape/murder of two young people the Knoxville police and the FBI has decided that this crime does not meet the requirements to be classified as a hate crime because the hateful murderers are not white and the victims of the murders are not non-whites. It is obvious to everyone (except complete idiots) that these murders were HATEFUL. What's with this? When you work for the politically corrupt government you have to check your brain at the door! This so-called NEW MORALITY is nothing but the old IMORALLITY.
It has been proven undeniably in cases too numerous to count as in Kingston New York, the filthy black savage who called the white kid a "white n****r" before HATEFULLY MAIMING him was not charged with a hate crime because the prosecutor in that case was TOO STUPID to use the so-called hate crime law against a non-white. And what exactly constitutes a "hate crime"? Is it if you happen to use a harmless racial slur whilst committing a HATEFUL CRIME, does that make all the difference? Then the scum bag politicians are even more... stupid..., no. There is not yet a word invented low enough to describe them.
We The People of the United States of America furiously object to the deceit and treachery of politically corrupt politicians. And they have been forewarned long enough, too long.
Enough said.
"You call me "Cracker",Honkey & quote,"Whitey" and you think it's OK.
But when I call you, n****r, Kike, *********, Sand-n****r, Camel Jockey, Beaner, **** or ***** you call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of crimes against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Yom Hashoah.
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
You have the NAACP
You have BET.
If we had WET (white entertainment television) we'd be racists.
If we had White Pride Day you would call us racists.
If we had a White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had an organization only for whites to 'advance' our lives, we'd be racists.
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships, you know we'd be racists.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.
If we marched for our race and rights, we'd be racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange. And you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
You rob us, carjack us and shoot at us.
But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
I am white.
I am proud.
But you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists? "
Thank you. God bless America!

[ablegoodman]

The 1st Amendment allows you to call for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government AS A MATTER OF INTELLECTUAL PRINCIPLE OR PHILOSOPHY. See, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (unanimous court) and Meyer v Grant, 486 US 414 (1988) (unanimous court) regarding political speech.
In a free society there is a bright line between thought/speech and action. Government is constitutionally prohibited from punishing thought/speech.
What you may not do is become a "clear and present danger" or "imminent threat" by hatching a specific plan. In other words, saying a judge "ought to be shot" or "deserves to be killed" is constitutionally protected speech. Saying something like, "guys, bring your guns to Joe's house tonight at midnight and we'll go over to Judge X's house and kill him", constitutes a "clear and present danger" or "imminent threat" and is not protected.
The 1st Amendment was designed to allow the citizen to say, "the king is a corrupt murdering tyrant and deserves to be killed!" If the citizen is not free to say that, then you don't have a free country.
According to the facts as presented by the MSM, TURNER DID NOT HATCH A SPECIFIC PLAN TO MURDER THE JUDGES IN QUESTION. Accordingly, his speech was opinion and protected. The publication of already public information about judges is irrelevant to the 1st Amendment point at issue in Turner's situation since the publication of already public information can't be fairly construed to constitute "incitement".
Government is always looking for ways to repress the speech of its critics.
IN MY OPINION, PURELY AS A MATTER OF PHILOSOPHY AND PRINCIPLE, whoever is behind the frivolous prosecution of Hal Turner is tyrannical s-c-u-m who very richly deserves to be killed. (I particularly dislike Patrick Fitzgerald because he prosecuted Scooter Libby WHILE KNOWING FULL WELL the whole time that Richard Armitage was the Plame leaker. That makes him "s-c-u-m who should be fired" in my book.)
Anybody who has a problem with opinion, instead of running their illiterate ad hominem control-freak mouths, would be better served by reading some 1st Amendment case law, starting with Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (unanimous court) and Meyer v Grant, 486 US 414 (1988) (unanimous court). Regarding the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, there are a number of seminal United States Supreme Court decisions every citizen should read. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) is the obscenity standard. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) is the ?fighting words? standard, but Chaplinsky has been weakened by later cases such as Gooding v. Wilson, 405 US 518 (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 US 130 (1974). Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) is the standard for parody and satire. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) and Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 are also "must reads". As a matter of fact, in the recent case of State of South Dakota v. Marcus J. Suhn, 2008 SD 128, the South Dakota Supreme Court, citing U.S. Supreme Court cases, upheld a citizen's right to swear at the police.
Turner is a moron if he doesn't demand a jury trial. It will be interesting to see how far this farce is allowed to proceed, or if the freedom of speech will in fact be further restricted by the Supremes. If the ACLU were other than the leftists they are, they would represent Turner just as zealously as they defend Nazi speech.

[cpotato2004]

The US government murdered one million people in Iraq.

[cpotato2004]

Judge offices are public knowledge.

[excoachken]

Ironic that this moron quotes Jefferson while acting out his childish thoughts that Jefferson would find appalling!

[bmlott27]

This problem is simple - a threat becomes a REAL threat and more than just "saying something crazy" when you actually begin to take action on the words you said. This guy did more than just say something crazy - he went and found a map that he offered up to help anyone who was willing to help him follow through with his threat.

He did more than talk - he took a step toward making the threat come true. Throw his crazy a$$ in jail!

[jummy1]

hall turner was the "source" for several instances of deranged conspiracy mongering by the anti-bush progressive left. he started the "october surprise" meme, by which bush was supposedly going to launch a nuclear first-strike against iran just prior to the 2004 election. he was also the brains behind the "bush deliberately and covertly blew the levees in new orleans" nonsence, and was specifically cited by minister farrakahn on cnn as his source for that "story.

progressives owe much to hall turner.

[johnbrown8888]

Free speech mya$$--this is terrorism in action--incitement to commit a murderous criminal act.

If this Whitey Rightey were a Muslim he'd be at Gitmo already.

[rfague]

You got that right John.

What gets me is just how stupid these right wing idiots are.

They create their own problems (like the Metzgers) and then wonder why the Fed goes after them. If you ask me, what the right wing nuts ought to be worried about is minority groups doing to them what they've been doing to minority groups.

There are a lot more minorities in this country than there are right wing nuts and if some of them adopt the same extremist tactics the wing nuts are using, the extreme right will get a taste of their own medicine, and I'm betting it won't taste good.

[midwest_mind]

As repugnant as Turner?s statements were, I fully believe they are covered under the First Amendment right to Free Speech. But when he posted the map of the courthouse, I think that was when he crossed the line from Free Speech to incitement to commit murder.

[phijef]

If over the airwaves, I don't think it is right for anyone to advocate killing of a US Citizen. The airwaves are owned by the public. It is up to us to determine where the "line" is.

[TheOneAndOnlyBob]

This is indeed a tough one.

On one hand, I do not want to infringe upon the rights of free speech (even though I greatly disagree with this fool). On the other hand, this case is alot like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. It's free speech to do so, but it's wrong because others can be injured or killed by your irresponsible action.

I've never thought it right to say that anyone should be killed because you disagree with thier beliefs, actions or 'official judgements' (as in this case). He compounded that by basically pointing out where they work, how to get around the car blockades, etc.

This reminds me of the case of a White supremesist(I wish I could remember his name) in Oregon a few years ago who was arrested and convicted of inciting others to violence when a couple skinheads attacked and injured (maybe killed - my memory isn't that clear on that part of the details). His conviction was not overturned by any appeals. His tactics were similar to Hal Turners (although far, far more extreme).

[TheOneAndOnlyBob]

Let me correct one paragraph in my previous comment:
The last paragraph should be corrected to read as below (changes between the underlines):

This reminds me of the case of a White supremesist(I wish I could remember his name) in Oregon a few years ago who was arrested and convicted of inciting others to violence when a couple skinheads __that were incited to action by his writings__ attacked and injured (maybe killed - my memory isn't that clear on that part of the details). His conviction was not overturned by any appeals. His tactics were similar to Hal Turners (although far, far more extreme).

[Wiley1968]

You're talking about Tom Metzger of White Aryan Resistance. It wasn't a criminal trial though. In the late 80s, a group called East Side White Pride beat an Ethiopian man to death in Portland, Oregon. The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against both Tom and his son John on the grounds that because East Side White Pride had an affiliation with White Aryan Resistance, the Metzgers were liable for the murder. The Metzgers were indeed found liable and ordered to pay $12.5 million.