Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Society

Right-Wing Internet Host At Center of Violent Speech Case

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

40 thoughts on “Right-Wing Internet Host At Center of Violent Speech Case”

  1. of the above…one seems to be a plea, one seems to be a prayer…I don’t think either expressed direct intent. Frustration and anger yes….they won’t ever donate to the party of the aformentioned party…but there is a difference between nasty and intention. What does the law say?

    I personally wasn’t fond of either one but the ‘in-house’ crowd sounded more threatening to me.

  2. Don’t the guy’s sponsors buy time on his shows because they believe him to be influential with his listeners? Otherwise, someone is providing some random guy expensive, valuable, advertising revenue producing radio time simply to speak whatever comes into his head—and we all know THAT isn’t the case. So, if he has the influence his advertisers expect of him and he uses that influence to incite those same listeners to violent acts, the boy is in a heap of trouble that the 1st Amendment won’t save hime from—nor should it.

  3. “If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving, other judges will act the same way.”

    bu Talhah Al-Amrikee of RevolutionMuslim wrote on his Twitter account “May Allah kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker and burn them in Hell for all eternity. They insult our prophets Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses…”

    http://jonathanturley.org/2010/04/22/south-park-creators-threatened-with-death-over-depiction-of-muhammad/
    -======================================
    Mirriam-Webster:Main Entry: threat
    Pronunciation: \ˈthret\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrēat coercion; akin to Middle High German drōz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust
    Date: before 12th century

    1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
    2 : one that threatens
    3 : an indication of something impending Main Entry: 1threat
    Pronunciation: \ˈthret\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrēat coercion; akin to Middle High German drōz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust
    Date: before 12th century

    1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
    2 : one that threatens
    3 : an indication of something impending

  4. tomdarch:

    My bad – thanks for the correction. I just figured that someone that spouts off as much nonsense as she does (ala Dr. Phil), that she couldn’t possibly be a real doctor, or at least one qualified enough to speak with knowledge on life-issues, the ones she purports to be “schooled” in. And, especially in regards to women’s issues. Was in a rush and should have fact-checked myself before-hand.

  5. re: Palin/Dr. Screech – someone should ask Palin how retarded a person would be to get upset about the word nigger.

    re: Hal Turner AKA the douchebag of freedom – this is not free speech, sorry, this is a terrorist threat. And, while this nation has become a field of bed wetters over terrorist threats, it is important to differentiate between expressing an opinion and encouraging murder. I do not see a reason to wait until some nutbag acts on douchebags rant before we make it clear that there are limits other than yelling fire in a crowded theater.

  6. “Dr.” Laura IS a doctor – it’s just that she has a Ph.D. (from Columbia!) in physiology. If she was giving advice on how the lymphatic system is connected, she’d be on strong grounds to use the term “Doctor.” The problem is that her thesis on the “Effects of Insulin on 3-0-Methylglucose Transport in Isolated Rat Adipocytes” doesn’t particularly qualify her to give advice to a lady who’s in-laws are knuckle-dragging racists.

  7. First: James M – Well said.

    Second: “Dr.” Laura isn’t even a real doctor; she’s a poser like “Dr.” Phil.

    Third: It is abundantly obvious that both Dr. Poser and the Wasilly Hillbilly haven’t a clue as to what the First Amendment (well, my guess is the Constitution as a whole) means. Neither of these brain surgeons see that this isn’t a First Amendment issue, but an issue of racially denigrating an individual citizen’s right to not be racially denigrated.

  10. Swathmore mom

    It’s a case of one “victim” recognizing another “victim”.

    [The conservative advice maven made the announcement on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” saying she wants to “regain” her free speech rights.

    Schlessinger said she’s not retiring or quitting. Instead, she said, she feels stronger and freer to say what she believes needs to be said.

    “I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry — some special interest group deciding this is a time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates and sponsors,” she said.]

    http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0818/Dr.-Laura-Schlessinger-quitting-radio-show-at-end-of-year

    This isn’t the first time Ms. Laura (and Ms. Palin and all the other right-wing nit wits) have been somewhat less than empathetic to another’s pain – and blamed the real victim.

  12. I think it might be useful to borrow a concept from group defamation. Here the defendant wasn’t threatening “judges” generally, he was threatening three specific judges.

    He was also speaking in a context where he knew he was reaching a large audience of extremists, so that the possibility of someone carrying out his wishes was foreseeable.

    Those two things together make this unprotected speech in my mind.

  13. Yissil,

    I sir can see your point. I think they have been rather sensitive since San Antonio and the Medellion Cartel and all of that other hocus pocus….

    I wanna be sure I understand the context. So if you go to church and the Pastor tell you (the people) the sheep to take the Bible wherever you go and see unbelievers and hit them with the word of God. Would it be justified in arresting the good pastor if someone hits you with the book, which contains the word of god…..

    The above was meant as humor only…..

  14. Dr. L’s case and the “let’s kill all the judges” case don’t have anything in common as far as I can see.

    For some reason I am shocked and incensed. Maybe someone put something in my oatmeal, but I don’t see how threatening someone with death, whether or not it leads to imminent action, is a free speech issue. The second ammendment doesn’t allow me to put a gun to your head, even if the gun isn’t loaded.

    “He was charged with a single count of threatening to assault or kill the judges with the intent of impeding their official duties.”

    Because he said:

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

    This aggression shall not stand!

    The Dude abides.

  15. As far as the time between a speech and action being taken:

    Speech delivered by Hitler in Salzburg, 7 or 8 August 1920. (NSDAP meeting)

    The following quotation is from a shorthand transcript.

    “This is the first demand we must raise and do [reversal of the Versailles Treaty provisions]: that our people be set free, that these chains be burst asunder, that Germany be once again captain of her soul and master of her destinies, together with all those who want to join Germany. (Applause)

    And the fulfillment of this first demand will then open up the way for all the other reforms. And here is one thing that perhaps distinguishes us from you [Austrians] as far as our programme is concerned, although it is very much in the spirit of things: our attitude to the Jewish problem.

    For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don’t be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don’t think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. (Applause)

    Source: D Irving, The War Path: Hitler’s Germany 1933-1939. Papermac, 1978, p.xxi

    Point # 4 of the 25 Point Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party – Munich 1920

    Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

    If any of this sounds like current political rhetoric, the similarities are purely coincidental.

    Freedom of speech means not shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre – IF THERE IS NO FIRE.

  16. It’s Schlessinger’s right to say that too. And it’s her sponsors’ right to bail collectively in response and leave her show with no money. Which they did. Yay capitalism.

  20. Can we say, Bull Shit! On both side…..and another heartbreaking moment. Another Hypocrite Congregationalist….oh no I mean…Columnist…can’t say talk radio as you never get a word in edgewise…has decided to call it a day….hanging up the ears….

    FULL AUDIO: Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s N-word rant

    August 12, 2010 7:02 pm ET by Jeremy Holden

    On August 10, Dr. Laura Schlessinger launched into a racially charged rant, during which Schlessinger — in her own words — “articulated the ‘n’ word all the way out — more than one time.” Among other things, Schlessinger also told an African-American caller that she had a “chip on [her] shoulder.” Schlessinger has since apologized for her remarks, but audio from the discussion appears to have been excised from the recording of that day’s show that appears on Schlessinger’s website.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008120045

Comments are closed.