Summer CE Week #1: “Blogger’s case may test free-speech protections” Aug. 16th
Posting said judges ‘deserve to be killed’
TurnerCHICAGO – Internet radio host Hal Turner disliked how three federal judges rejected the National Rifle Association’s attempt to overturn a pair of handgun bans.
“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed,” Turner wrote on his blog June 2, according to the FBI. “Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.”
The next day, Turner posted photographs of the appellate judges and a map showing the Chicago courthouse where they work, noting the placement of “anti-truck bomb barriers.” When an FBI agent appeared at the door of his New Jersey home, Turner said he meant no harm.
He is now behind bars awaiting trial for threatening the judges, deemed by a U.S. magistrate as too dangerous to be free.
Turner’s case will likely test the limits of political speech at a time when incendiary talk is proliferating on broadcast outlets and the Internet, from the microphones of well-known commentators to the keyboards of anonymous webizens. President Barack Obama has been depicted as a Nazi and slain Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller as “Tiller the killer.” On guns and abortion, war and torture, taxes and now health care, the commentary feeds off pools of anger that ebb and flow with the zeitgeist.
Mark Potok, an editor at the Southern Poverty Law Center who tracks extremists and hate speech, thinks that “political speech has gotten rougher in the last six months.”
While federal authorities moved swiftly to stop Turner, scholars note that the line between free speech and criminality is a fine one.
Turner’s attorney says prosecutors overreacted.
“He gave an opinion. He did not say go out and kill,” defense attorney Michael Orozco said last week after unsuccessfully seeking bail. “This is political hyperbole, nothing more. He’s a shock jock.”
That is not how U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and his prosecutors see the case. They charged Turner, a blogger admired by white supremacists, with threatening the lives of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit: Frank Easterbrook, Richard Posner and William Bauer.
Writing on his blog, which has since been taken down, Turner disputed a June 2 ruling by the three judges, who said a federal district judge had properly dismissed the NRA’s lawsuit to overturn handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. It was a Supreme Court matter, said the judges.
Turner called the judges – including Posner and Easterbrook, two of the nation’s most prominent conservative jurists – “unpatriotic, deceitful scum.” He said the only thing standing in the way of the judges and “the government” achieving ultimate power “is the fact that We The People have guns. Now, that is very much in jeopardy.”
Quoting Thomas Jefferson, Turner said, “The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.” He added his own words: “It is time to replenish the tree!”
Turner, 47, who had three semiautomatic handguns, a shotgun and 350 rounds of ammunition in his North Bergen, N.J., home when the FBI arrested him, worked at times as an FBI informant. Although Fitzgerald’s office says he provided occasional information on right-wing extremists, Orozco said he was recruited as an “agent provocateur” to get leftists to act in public against him and reveal themselves to the FBI.
First Amendment scholar Martin Redish said much of what Turner wrote is protected by the Constitution, including his declarations that the judges should be eliminated. But he said Turner probably crossed a line when he printed information about the judges, their office locations and the courthouse.
“I would give very strong odds on a thousand bucks that once he said that stuff, it takes it out of any kind of hyperbole range,” said Redish, a professor at Northwestern University Law School. “I just don’t see him being protected.”
I personally do not know much about the topic discussed in this article except for the fact that it is about freedom of speech, something we all have. I think that everyone has a right to freedom of speech. I do not think that that is something that should be taken away. There are however limits to this and I believe Hal Turner passed those limits. It is one thing to dislike another person, but to sit there and say they need to be killed and give out information about them is a little much. He is basically trying to send people out to kill them and I do not think that you should have the freedom to do that. I would like to know more about all our freedom of speech rights and even follow this case to see what happens because I believe it is very interesting. It is something that we can relate to because we all have freedom of speech.
Turner is obviously putting the lives of these federal judges in danger. By stating that their deaths would result in the freedom of millions (freedom in the form of the Second Amendment) has the potential to spark action from extremists willing to take matters into their own hands to ensure their right to bear arms. What really seems to threaten the lives of the judges is the posting of the map of their workplace and photos of each judge. This gives those extremists a headstart on their course of action.
I believe that citizens should have the right to own a weapon in the event of it’s need for life threatening defense or hunting. It is even a stretch on the Constitution to allow all citizens this right because it clearly states that the right to bear arms is placed in the hands of the state militia. As for the Turner case, he placed the lives of those judges in danger and I feel that his action goes directly against the ruling in the Schenck v. United States Case where Justice Wendell limited the right of freedom of speech if it represented “clear and present danger” to public safety.
I question whether the internet abides by the same laws as other forms of speech and media, or if there are holes in the regulation of speech online?
Response to Nicole’s Post:
The freedom of speech is given to all of us with the intention to allow opinions and ideas to be expressed freely without the government intervening. In Schenck v. United States Case, Justice Wendell limited these rights if it created a threatening situation to public safety. Now I’m not exactly sure if this Turner case follows this ruling due to the way freedom of speech is handled with the internet or if actions follow this ruling. The thing that bothers me about this case is that recently they said his involvement as an FBI Informant will aid in his defense. Orozco even said, “His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner that would cause their arrest.” Basically saying that he did it to catch those people who would act violently. *cough* BS. If you want to know more about his defense there is a good article at http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-web-hal-turner-0819aug19,0,1700724.story.
I do not have much knowledge about the right to free speech. But, I agree with Slevin when he stated “…the line between free speech and criminality is a fine one.” I do not believe in censorship to a large extent, but once people’s lives are threatened things are different and should be taken very seriously.
I thnk that Turner went past his rights of free speech when he posted the photographs of the judge’s homes and said “Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty.” I found it interesting to see how differently the prosecuting attorney and defense attorney saw this case, and what they believed was acceptable to say. I also thought it was interesting on how Turner chose to justify what he believed, by quoting Thomas Jefferson.
Reading this article makes me more interested on the actual laws of free speech, and what is the so-called “fine line.” Is every case different? Or are there plain and simple restrictions? I’m interested to see the fate of Turner’s case.
I do agree that Turner took his rights far across the line of what is acceptable. If he hadn’t planned for any harm to be done to the judges, what was his reasoning for posting their pictures and whereabouts? It just doesn’t pan out.
Turner said “the only thing standing in the way of the judges and “the government” achieving ultimate power ‘is the fact that We The People have guns. Now, that is very much in jeopardy.’ ”
I want to know if my peers believe this is true. How is our right to bear arms in jeopardy? Is this a statement that is somewhat inaccurate, or rather more realistic?
Ashton:
I researched a little and found that free speech online is greatly protected by the ACLU. A recent law, The Child Online Protection Act, was rejected as unconstitutional. If you’d like to read on, here’s the link:
http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/22/court-strikes-down-internet-censorship-law/