the fbi are the new nazis

I’m not a lawyer. I’m a middle school social studies teacher. As uncomfortable as Turner’s speech may be, I still think it has to be protected. I belong to the camp that thinks that the proper response to such lunatics is to ridicule them publicly. You can’t (and probably shouldn’t try) to prevent hateful speech. That’s too much power for the government to enjoy.

I knew I liked you for some reason. Aurelius was certainly the most sagacious of the Emperors, but you know my particular admiration of Vespasian. However, your choice is seductive too.

One of my favorites is

“If anyone is able to convince me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change, for I seek the truth by which no one was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.”

Oh so apt for some other threads here, no?

There are four books in my bathroom.

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, The Tao Te Ching, “Brain Droppings” and “Napalm and Silly Putty” by George Carlin.

But unlike the other three, I also carried a copy of Marcus in my car for years. He was probably my favorite Emperor. Quite a guy.

“A fair reading would include the actions of Hal Turner here, wouldn’t you agree?”
_________________________________

Leave it up to an attorney to foster reasonable doubt. I still say no, but…

As pretentious and unlikely as it may sound, I was reading Marcus Aurelius’ “Meditations” tonight and this verse from Book 4 struck my eye:

“A man should always have these two rules in readiness; the one, to do only whatever the reason of the ruling and legislating faculty may suggest for the use of men; the other, to change thy opinion, if there is any one at hand who sets thee right and moves thee from any opinion. But this change of opinion must proceed only from a certain persuasion, as of what is just or of common advantage, and the like, not because it appears pleasant or brings reputation.”

Like the great Roman Philosopher-King, I pay homage to your intellect and your ability to modify your opinion based on well reasoned debate. I also recommend this paramount work of Stoicism to you.

Once again our good friend FFLEO is right on. You’re an honorable man.

“A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender’s participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

For example, Andy draws a floor plan of a bank, knowing of Dan’s intention to rob it. After Dan commits the robbery, Alice agrees to let him store the stolen money at her house. Both Andy and Alice can be charged with aiding and abetting, or acting as accessories to the robbery.”

A fair reading would include the actions of Hal Turner here, wouldn’t you agree?

Actually, if the proper disclaimers were contained therein, it could very probably be announced as a “lynch party”, a self-help exercise to demonstrate justice in keeping with American tradition in the absence of the state taking appropriate action to bring a miscreant politician to trial. Bring your own rope to SYMBOLICALLY illustrate the point. Much like a “Tea Party”.

If I walked off the public sidewalk and onto that politician’s lawn though I’d expect to spend a night in jail for trespassing. If I did it every day and tried to get to his front door I’d expect a trespassing charge, surveillance and who knows what other statutes applied to my actions for the purpose of prosecution.

I think one of the problems is that laws at hand aren’t used properly or are selectively used. The Tiller murderer was reported to the FBI several time shortly before he killed Dr. Tiller for vandalizing Dr. Tiller’s clinic (right up to the previous day as I recall) and the FBI did nothing. We naturally want another law to take care of the problem but what we need is dis-interested enforcement of the laws we have already. This paragraph is just a vagrant thought and not an attempt to turn the thread in a different direction.

Thanks Mike for the synopsis of the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision. I too appreciate your posting it.

We share the same concerns and I had meant to say I also was glad you joined in the discussion.

Jill, another good question. Where is that line drawn?

Mike A.,
While you even backed down on the conclusions of your initial post, your provision of context was as usual concise
and right on target. You always provide a clarity of vision and
fairness in your writing that makes it a pleasure to read you.

Do you think it is also unlawful to surveil to him? I thought about that after my comment and wondered about it. Does he deserve to be surveilled? Our govt. has surveilled peaceful protestors as well as those who advocate violence.

As an act of penance I have re-read Brandenburg v. Ohio. It is actually a very short, succinct and unanimous opinion. Brandenburg reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute, which prohibited advocating violence or criminal acts in the furtherance of political or industrial reform. The statute was unconstitutional because it criminalized mere advocacy. The test announced by the court is two-pronged: a. the speech must be “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and b. must be “likely to incite or produce such action.” The statements of Mr. Turner do not satisfy either prong of this test.

As someone who is close to being a First Amendment absolutist, I am actually more comfortable with the concurring opinion of Justice Douglas in Brandenburg. He expressed discomfort with both the old “clear and present danger” test and the Brandenburg version of it, insisting that the only true protection for unpopular advocacy under the First Amendment is to recognize a distinction between advocacy and action, between speech and actual criminality. In my opinion, the advantage of this view is that it provides clarity and imposes an additional safeguard against the natural human tendency to find imminency during periods of civil unrest or political controversy, that is, during times in which fear is most likely to influence judgment in favor of suppression. Our history is riddled with those instances.

In sum, I think Mr. Turner’s statements and postings are protected. Had he added, “Meet me and other like-minded individuals at the courthouse at noon today and we will storm the chambers and show these judges what we think of them,” the line would have been crossed. Had he added, “I have scheduled a meeting tonight where we will map out a plan for eliminating these judges,” the line would probably have been crossed. But, at least according to the report, he stopped short of taking or announcing any overt action in furtherance of his professed beliefs.

The Brandenburg opinion also cites a wonderful reminder from Oliver Wendell Holmes on the purpose of free speech: “Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the result.”

Welcome, I am pleased to have you join our discussion.

Remember that with Dr. Tiller’s murderer, he not only spoke out he violated the FACE Act and broke other laws and was not arrested, although he clearly trespassed on the clinic property and glued doors shut, etc.

Mr. Turner, to my knowledge, has not even come close to the *actions*–not just speech—the other man took before he killed Dr. Tiller.

Let O’Reily Limbaugh, Turner et al. spout there hate because it continues to expose them. However, only arrest them for their actions or verifiable conspiracy plots of murder and/or other applicable crimes.

I’m reading your responses with great interest on this one. I’m torn as to where we draw the line.

Sorry man. I’m falling squarely in the mespo/FFLEO/Jill camp on this one. I think it’s stupid yet protected. If this guy was arrested, I want Bill-O arrested for aiding and abetting the murder of Dr. Tiller. Why? It’s not because of the Free Speech issues proper. At this point, it’s a question of equal application. If the two cases are factually similar as they seem to be (entertainers spouting stupidity), what’s more heinous? This guy being full of hot air and hyperbole that ended in what? Nothing? Maybe some hurt feelings or mild paranoia. Or Bill-O’s comparable rants that ended in murder? I’d really like to know why you think he should have been arrested. And do you think Bill-O should be cuffed for his role in Tiller’s killing?

“Mr. Turner should have received increased, lawful surveillance and then arrested if he violated any law or became involved in an actionable conspiracy assignation plot/plan against these judges. Until that threshold, he has not crossed the line from free speech to action.”

That makes sense to me but I would like to hear how Mike A. perceives that Mr. Turner crossed the line.

Mike A.

How did Mr. Turner cross the line?

I want to hear everyone out on this.

However, we do not want police actions against free speech regardless of how objectionable or irrational, in such cases. To do so will continue to limit free speech rights when someone in power has a different view—more conservative or more liberal—than you or I might espouse.

Mr. Turner should have received increased, lawful surveillance and then arrested if he violated any law or became involved in an actionable conspiracy assignation plot/plan against these judges. Until that threshold, he has not crossed the line from free speech to action.

Mr. Turner has now crossed the line and will properly be held accountable. And he will undoubtedly be criticized by the Limbaughs and the Hannitys as an extremist lunatic. They will of course be technically correct in denying any responsibility for Mr. Turner’s actions, just as the right has denied responsibility for the murder of abortion doctors. But they are like drug dealers who aggressively market their poison, deny responsibility for the use of their products and mock the weakness of their addicted customers.

I agree that this “speech” must be take serious. I have no problem with that. But is not the speech still protected? He may have crossed the line of moral decency. But would I want to start Anticipatory Arresting people who call to arms?

What about the North Koreans living in America today? Should they all be arrested and detained because of Kim’s action of aggression against the US? Should only Korean Nationals who reside within the US Borders be detained?

After this story on NPR, the report went on to a new topic– another wealthy financier being brought up on charges for a ponzi scheme. I found the juxtaposition of how the stories were covered, interesting. We really do have quite a few “white collar crime scenes” going on right now, to include those in our govt. (as the info. on the Fed and Bank of America, to name one example of thousands, will show).

What this man did is scary and there is an organized movement behind him. But the white collar criminals, many of whom work at the highest level of our govt., are quite dangerous and I am struck at the difference in how their actions are perceived.

Jonathna, I don’t know if death threats coupled with tracking of movements should be tolerated as free speech. The two things together seem to me to fall into the category of action, not speech. Judges should be able to work without fear of being killed. I am all for loud and strong protest at the homes of anyone, but I think there is an additional consideration when death threats are added to the equation. I am thinking about what you wrote, and I’m going to take seriously what you and others with a differnt point of view on this say, but as of now, I think he did cross a line into action.

The title?

Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency