The conviction of right-wing Internet radio host Harold C. Turner of threatening three federal judges sets the stage for an interesting appellate fight over the first amendment. The case involving some of the best known Seventh Circuit judges — William J. Bauer, Frank H. Easterbrook and Richard A. Posner — was heard in New York by a Brooklyn jury. Two prior trials led to mistrials.
Turner, 48, was charged after he posted inflammatory Internet messages about the three appeals court judges after they upheld a ban of handguns in Chicago in a ruling later reversed by the Supreme Court. In a June 2009 posting, he wrote, “If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving, other judges will act the same way.” He was charged with a single count of threatening to assault or kill the judges with the intent of impeding their official duties.
It is a case that turns on the protection of so called “violent speech,” the subject of a prior column.
Turner also said the judges “deserve to be killed.” I have serious reservations about the basis for a prosecution for such speech — absent any action to harm the judges.
The case itself as a rare occurrence of Seventh Circuit judges testifying in the Second Circuit — a truly inspiring sign akin to “Birnam wood . . . come to Dunsinane.”
The trial was also interesting by the disclosure that Turner had worked with the FBI to uncover extremists. This site is popular with Nazis and white supremacists.
He now faces maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
Source: New York Times
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/21/sweden.wikileaks.charge/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
?nasty guy or what can happen when you piddle on the wrong shoes?
Blouise,
I’ll second that in re Yissil. He’s an interesting addition to the Prof’s salon.
Yissil,
Oh, what the hell. Let me spell it out.
It’s a matter of death threats against a judge vs. a judge doing his job by interpreting the law and the constitution.
See? It’s just like if you got arrested and you told the judge that you would blow his motherf*cking head off if he didn’t f*cking give you back your f*cking guns and f*cking let you go.
Which you shouldn’t do, by the way.
==============================================================
You know Yissil, the more I read your stuff, the more I like you … even though you called me old … at least I think it was you …
So a guys verbal statement, with no action to carry it out, is worse than the judge’s decision’s that WILL lead to actions that will prevent honest citizen’s being unable to defend themselves, which could lead to injury or death?!?!?
———-
Oh, what the hell. Let me spell it out.
It’s a matter of death threats against a judge vs. a judge doing his job by interpreting the law and the constitution.
See? It’s just like if you got arrested and you told the judge that you would blow his motherf*cking head off if he didn’t f*cking give you back your f*cking guns and f*cking let you go.
Which you shouldn’t do, by the way.
vlf2112, I simply don’t perceive this as a civil rights issue because racism isn’t a crime, nor should it be. As for Turner, my understanding is that he was not convicted for inciting violence, but for making a direct threat.
Mike Appleton:
I agree with you to a point. Yes, Dr. Laura certainly has a right to say whatever she pleases, but she certainly doesn’t have the right to tell the caller that she is wrong to feel the way she feels (essentially telling her to “suck it up” and that she shouldn’t have married “outside of her race”), and she certainly doesn’t have the right to direct the same language at the caller who was seeking help in how to deal with said language, especially since the woman was calling for advice on how to deal with her husbands family and friends making overtly racist comments to her. Again, I don’t see this as a First Amendment issue, but an issue of racial insensitivity, lack of common sense, and yes, infringement of the callers civil rights.
As far as one’s audience … In light of recent violent events against government, its employees, liberals, and those perceived as the cause of our economic woes (James von Brunn, Richard Poplawski, Andrew Stack, Byron Williams, for example), and threats made against government, its employees, and the judiciary, I think the Turner’s in this country know exactly the type of audience they attract and should exercise common sense when speaking over the airwaves. If common sense is a foreign concept to them, they should be held accountable for basically inciting violence. If Turner or one of his kind were at a rally, spewing what they spew over the airwaves and a riot breaks out, they would be held responsible for inciting a riot. How is this different if the inciting is done over the airwaves?
OT:
but speaking of the Internet (which may, in fact be dead….)
http://www1.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/Verizon-and-Google-Internet-101108714.html
‘The new proposal calls for rules barring service providers from preventing users from sending and receiving legal information of any kind. Users also could not be prevented from linking any application, service or device they choose to the Web.’
…what the heck does that mean anyway?
maybe it’s time to dump the junk and go back to paper, it’s more environmentally friendly, less apt to lead to identity theft and more substantial anyway 🙂
John – yes it “WILL lead to injury & death” just as surely as the continued fetish over guns will. People are injured and killed every day in America because of this fetishized reading of the second amendment. Calling for the murder of the judge who made a ruling based on US law will not change that but it might add a judge to the list of killed.
I am willing to draw the line on free speech at the call for murder. Judges, shitty cartoonists, doctors, politicians of all stripes and ordinary citizens are all protected if we are clear that calls for murder are not acceptable.
Make that “WILL lead to injury & death”, at least for some people.
So a guys verbal statement, with no action to carry it out, is worse than the judge’s decision’s that WILL lead to actions that will prevent honest citizen’s being unable to defend themselves, which could lead to injury or death?!?!?
Hmmmmm
Geez, I did Hal Turner on my blog 2 years ago……
“The trial was also interesting by the disclosure that Turner had worked with the FBI to uncover extremists.”
like working with Congress to uncover politicians
One lives to be of service.
Mike A:
re: Buddha’s posts
Very funny.
Mike A:
then how can this guy be on trial if there was no violence incited?
Byron, sure you can. Just follow Buddha’s posts.
AY,
Normally I don’t get involved in these legal debates but I’ve been arguing with people all day so probalby I need to adjust my meds. Until then I shall continue to act as if Jonathan Turley is probably a little off the mark when it comes to this whole first amendment business and I’m just the guy to set everybody straight.
But also I think I am inflamed by the whole issue because threatening judges, police, and federal officials, or calling for the states to raise militias to protect themselves from the federal government, or occasionally shoothing people or blowing stuff up (happens more often than you would think from watching the news) are practices the radical right has indulged in for years, and hardly anything ever happens. And given that the radical right has become more and more the mainstream right this situation seems unhealthy to me. To say the least. Or the most.
(My Second-Amendment/gun-to-the-head scenario was pretty clever, huh? That whole “screaming fire in a crowded theatre” thing is gettng pretty old.)
Mike A:
can you incite if it doesn’t lead to violence?
Mike,
Yeah, categorizing an audience is pretty problematic. People are much more inclined to demonize and think the worst of their political opponents than those who hold radical versions of their own beliefs. Adopting a standard that requires considering how likely the audience is to carry out criminal acts would also require constantly asking counterfactual questions, which is always a pain. It might also encourage religious profiling (one can easily see some jury members deciding that someone speaking to the Muslim community is obviously speaking to at least some dangerous extremists, while not thinking the same of the Christian community).
It’s just so hard not to draw that conclusion here given this case’s particular facts (e.g. they can prove he knew he was speaking to neo-Nazis and other clear-cut extremists that the FBI was investigating). Line drawing would prove really difficult later on though.
—
I also agree that it is a stretch to call what he said a “threat” (I see it as more of an incitement), but that’s a statutory issue, not a First Amendment one.
vlf2112, I disagree that one has a “right not to be racially denigrated.” I believe that freedom of speech includes the right to criticize my race, my religious beliefs, my ethnicity and the way I comb my hair. There are civil remedies available for defamatory statements and there are criminal penalties available for inciting to violence. And while I agree in general with James M.’s analysis, I don’t know that one can assume anything about one’s audience. The verdict in this case is problematic and dangerous because it is a stretch to equate the reported language with “threatening to assault or kill.”