I think Turner should be charged with terrorism. That prosecutor should investigate Turner's followers who visit and post on his site.
You threaten and incite others to kill politicians, blacks, and Jews on a web site and it is free speech ?
I hope he holds his breath for my donation.
Inside Information
Moderator: Deep Knight
-
Doktor Avalanche
- Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
- Posts: 1767
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
- Location: Yuba City, CA
Re: Inside Information
Hate to tell Turner this but any speech that incites violence and/or hate isn't protected by the free speech clause.ClemIsBack wrote:I think Turner should be charged with terrorism. That prosecutor should investigate Turner's followers who visit and post on his site.
You threaten and incite others to kill politicians, blacks, and Jews on a web site and it is free speech ?
I hope he holds his breath for my donation.
The courts have upheld that for years.
And uttering in public that you want to kill the President? Doubly so.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
-
Deep Knight
- Posts: 5397
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 4:42 am
- Location: Washington DC
Re: Inside Information
Turner cites the following, but I don't think it says what he says it says.
U.S. Supreme Court
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)
Watts v. United States
No. 1107, Misc.
Decided April 21, 1969
394 U.S. 705
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public gathering that, if inducted into Army (which he vowed would never occur) and made to carry a rifle "the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.," held to be crude political hyperbole which, in light of its context and conditional nature, did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President within the coverage of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a).
Certiorari granted; 131 U.S.App.D.C. 125, 402 F.2d 676, reversed and remanded.
PER CURIAM.
After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, petitioner was convicted of violating a 1917 statute which prohibits any person from "knowingly and willfully . . . [making] any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States. . . ." * The incident
Page 394 U. S. 706
which led to petitioner's arrest occurred on August 27, 1966, during a public rally on the Washington Monument grounds. The crowd present broke up into small discussion groups and petitioner joined a gathering scheduled to discuss police brutality. Most of those in the group were quite young, either in their teens or early twenties. Petitioner, who himself was 18 years old, entered into the discussion after one member of the group suggested that the young people present should get more education before expressing their views. According to an investigator for the Army Counter Intelligence Corps who was present, petitioner responded:
"They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J."
"They are not going to make me kill my black brothers." On the basis of this statement, the jury found that petitioner had committed a felony by knowingly and willfully threatening the President. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed by a two-to-one vote. 131 U.S.App.D.C. 125, 402 F.2d 676 (1968). We reverse.
At the close of the Government's case, petitioner's trial counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal. He contended that there was
"absolutely no evidence on the basis of which the jury would be entitled to find that [petitioner] made a threat against the life of the President. "
Page 394 U. S. 707
He stressed the fact that petitioner's statement was made during a political debate, that it was expressly made conditional upon an event -- induction into the Armed Forces -- which petitioner vowed would never occur, and that both petitioner and the crowd laughed after the statement was made. He concluded,
"Now actually what happened here in all this was a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President. What he was saying, he says, I don't want to shoot black people because I don't consider them my enemy, and if they put a rifle in my hand it is the people that put the rifle in my hand, as symbolized by the President, who are my real enemy."
We hold that the trial judge erred in denying this motion.
Certainly the statute under which petitioner was convicted is constitutional on its face. The Nation undoubtedly has a valid, even an overwhelming, interest in protecting the safety of its Chief Executive and in allowing him to perform his duties without interference from threats of physical violence. See H.R.Rep. No. 652, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. (1916). Nevertheless, a statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.
The judges in the Court of Appeals differed over whether or not the "willfullness" requirement of the statute implied that a defendant must have intended to carry out his "threat." Some early cases found the willfulness requirement met if the speaker voluntarily uttered the charged words with "an apparent determination to carry them into execution." Ragansky v. United States, 253 F.6d 3, 645 (C.A. 7th Cir.1918) (emphasis supplied); cf. Piece v. United States, 365 F.2d 292 (C.A.
Page 394 U. S. 708
10th Cir.1966). The majority below seemed to agree. Perhaps this interpretation is correct, although we have grave doubts about it. See the dissenting opinion below, 131 U.S.App.D.C. at 135-142, 402 F.2d 686-693 (Wright, J.). But whatever the "willfullness" requirement implies, the statute initially requires the Government to prove a true "threat." We do not believe that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner fits within that statutory term. For we must interpret the language Congress chose
"against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 376 U. S. 270 (1964). The language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes, see Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U. S. 53, 383 U. S. 58 (1966), is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact. We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President." Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded with instructions that it be returned to the District Court for entry of a judgment of acquittal.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART would deny the petition for certiorari.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissents.
Page 394 U. S. 709
* 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) provides:
"Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.
The charge in this case is of an ancient vintage.
The federal statute under which petitioner was convicted traces its ancestry to the Statute of Treasons (25 Edw. 3) which made it a crime to "compass or imagine the Death of . . . the King." Note, Threats to Take the Life of the President, 32 Harv.L.Rev. 724, 725 (1919). It is said that one Walter Walker, a 15th century keeper of an inn known as the "Crown," was convicted under the Statute of Treasons for telling his son: "Tom, if thou behavest thyself well, I will make thee heir to the CROWN." He was found guilty of compassing and imagining the death of the King, hanged, drawn, and quartered. 1 J. Campbell, Lives of the Chief Justices of England 151 (1873).
In the time of Edward IV, one Thomas Burdet who predicted that the king would "soon die, with a view to alienate the affections" of the people was indicted for "compassing and imagining of the death of the King," 79 Eng.Rep. 706 (1477) -- the crime of constructive treason [Footnote 1] with which the old reports are filled.
Page 394 U. S. 710
In the time of Charles II, one Edward Brownlow was indicted "for speaking these words, that he wished all the gentry in the land would kill one another, so that the comminalty might live the hetter." 3 Middlesex County Rec. 326 (1888). In the same year (1662), one Robert Thornell was indicted for saying "that, if the Kinge did side with the Bishops, the divell take Kinge and the Bishops too." Id. at 327.
While our Alien and Sedition Laws were in force, John Adams, President of the United States, en route from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Quincy, Massachusetts, stopped in Newark, New Jersey, where he was greeted by a crowd and by a committee that saluted him by firing a cannon.
A bystander said, "There goes the President and they are firing at his ass." Luther Baldwin was indicted for replying that he did not care "if they fired through his ass." He was convicted in the federal court for speaking "sedicious words tending to defame the President and Government of the United States" and fined, assessed court costs and expenses, and committed to jail until the fine and fees were paid. See J. Smith, Freedom's Fetters 270-274 (1956).
The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters, and I had thought we had done with them forever. [Footnote 2]
Page 394 U. S. 711
Yet the present statute has hardly fared better.
"Like the Statute of Treasons, section 871 was passed in a 'relatively calm peacetime spring,' but has been construed under circumstances when intolerance for free speech was much greater than it normally might be."
Note, Threatening the President: Protected Dissenter or Political Assassin, 57 Geo.L.J. 553, 570 (1969). Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 871 have been sustained for displaying posters urging passersby to "hang [President] Roosevelt." United States v. Apel, 44 F.Supp. 592, 593 (D.C.N.D.Ill.1942); for declaring that "President Wilson ought to be killed. It is a wonder some one has not done it already. If I had an opportunity, I would do it myself." United States v. Stickrath, 242 F.1d 1, 152 (D.C.S.D. Ohio 1917); for declaring that "Wilson is a wooden-headed son of a bitch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power, I would put him there," Clark v. United States, 250 F.4d 9 (C.A. 5th Cir.1918). In sustaining an indictment under the statute against a man who indicated that he would enjoy shooting President Wilson if he had the chance, the trial court explained the thrust of § 871:
"The purpose of the statute was undoubtedly, not only the protection of the President, but also the prohibition of just such statements as those alleged in this indictment. The expression of such direful intentions and desires, not only indicates a spirit of disloyalty to the nation bordering upon treason, but is, in a very real sense, a menace to the peace and safety of the country. . . . It arouses resentment
Page 394 U. S. 712
and concern on the part of patriotic citizens."
United States v. Jasick, 252 F.9d 1, 933 (D.C.E.D. Mich.1918). Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution.
[Footnote 1]
The prosecution in those cases laid bare to the juries that the treasonous thoughts were the heart of the matter;
"the original of his Treasons proceeded from the imagination of his heart; which imagination was, in itself, High-Treason, albeit the same proceeded not to any overt fact: and the heart being possessed with the abundance of his traitorous imagination, and not being able so to contain itself, burst forth in vile and traitorous Speeches, and from thence to horrible and heinous actions."
Trial of Sir John Perrot, 1 How.St.Tr. 1315, 1318 (1592).
"[T]he high treason charged, is the compassing or imagining (in other words, the intending or designing) the death of the king; I mean his NATURAL DEATH; which being a hidden operation of the mind, an overt act is any thing which legally proves the existence of such traitorous design and intention -- I say that the design against the king's natural life, is the high treason under the first branch of the statute, and whatever is evidence, which may be legally laid before a jury to judge of the traitorous intention, is a legal overt act; because an overt act is nothing but legal evidence embodied upon the record."
Trial of Thomas Mardy, 24 How.St.Tr.199, 894 (1794). And see 84 Eng.Rep. 1057 (1708).
For a discussion of the adequacy of mere words as overt acts see 3 W. Holdsworth, History of English Law 203 (1927).
[Footnote 2]
"In the Sedition Act cases, the tendency of words to produce acts against the peace and security of the community was stretched to its utmost latitude. Likewise, judges and juries, in their willingness to presume evil intent on the part of Republican writers, largely nullified the safeguards erected by the Sedition Act itself. Criticism of the President and Congress -- in which every American indulges as his birthright -- was severely punished; yet this practice manifestly has only a remote tendency to injure and bring into contempt the government of the United States. In short, much that has become commonplace in American political life was put under the ban by the Federalist lawmakers and judges of 1798."
J. Miller, Crisis in Freedom 233 (1951).
MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE HARLAN joins, dissenting.
The Court holds, without hearing, that this statute is constitutional and that it is here wrongly applied. Neither of these rulings should be made without hearing, even if we assume that they are correct.
Perhaps this is a trivial case because of its peculiar facts and because the petitioner was merely given a suspended sentence. That does not justify the Court's action. It should induce us to deny certiorari, not to decide the case on its merits and to adjudicate the difficult questions that it presents.
U.S. Supreme Court
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)
Watts v. United States
No. 1107, Misc.
Decided April 21, 1969
394 U.S. 705
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public gathering that, if inducted into Army (which he vowed would never occur) and made to carry a rifle "the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.," held to be crude political hyperbole which, in light of its context and conditional nature, did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President within the coverage of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a).
Certiorari granted; 131 U.S.App.D.C. 125, 402 F.2d 676, reversed and remanded.
PER CURIAM.
After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, petitioner was convicted of violating a 1917 statute which prohibits any person from "knowingly and willfully . . . [making] any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States. . . ." * The incident
Page 394 U. S. 706
which led to petitioner's arrest occurred on August 27, 1966, during a public rally on the Washington Monument grounds. The crowd present broke up into small discussion groups and petitioner joined a gathering scheduled to discuss police brutality. Most of those in the group were quite young, either in their teens or early twenties. Petitioner, who himself was 18 years old, entered into the discussion after one member of the group suggested that the young people present should get more education before expressing their views. According to an investigator for the Army Counter Intelligence Corps who was present, petitioner responded:
"They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J."
"They are not going to make me kill my black brothers." On the basis of this statement, the jury found that petitioner had committed a felony by knowingly and willfully threatening the President. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed by a two-to-one vote. 131 U.S.App.D.C. 125, 402 F.2d 676 (1968). We reverse.
At the close of the Government's case, petitioner's trial counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal. He contended that there was
"absolutely no evidence on the basis of which the jury would be entitled to find that [petitioner] made a threat against the life of the President. "
Page 394 U. S. 707
He stressed the fact that petitioner's statement was made during a political debate, that it was expressly made conditional upon an event -- induction into the Armed Forces -- which petitioner vowed would never occur, and that both petitioner and the crowd laughed after the statement was made. He concluded,
"Now actually what happened here in all this was a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President. What he was saying, he says, I don't want to shoot black people because I don't consider them my enemy, and if they put a rifle in my hand it is the people that put the rifle in my hand, as symbolized by the President, who are my real enemy."
We hold that the trial judge erred in denying this motion.
Certainly the statute under which petitioner was convicted is constitutional on its face. The Nation undoubtedly has a valid, even an overwhelming, interest in protecting the safety of its Chief Executive and in allowing him to perform his duties without interference from threats of physical violence. See H.R.Rep. No. 652, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. (1916). Nevertheless, a statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.
The judges in the Court of Appeals differed over whether or not the "willfullness" requirement of the statute implied that a defendant must have intended to carry out his "threat." Some early cases found the willfulness requirement met if the speaker voluntarily uttered the charged words with "an apparent determination to carry them into execution." Ragansky v. United States, 253 F.6d 3, 645 (C.A. 7th Cir.1918) (emphasis supplied); cf. Piece v. United States, 365 F.2d 292 (C.A.
Page 394 U. S. 708
10th Cir.1966). The majority below seemed to agree. Perhaps this interpretation is correct, although we have grave doubts about it. See the dissenting opinion below, 131 U.S.App.D.C. at 135-142, 402 F.2d 686-693 (Wright, J.). But whatever the "willfullness" requirement implies, the statute initially requires the Government to prove a true "threat." We do not believe that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner fits within that statutory term. For we must interpret the language Congress chose
"against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 376 U. S. 270 (1964). The language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes, see Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U. S. 53, 383 U. S. 58 (1966), is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact. We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President." Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded with instructions that it be returned to the District Court for entry of a judgment of acquittal.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART would deny the petition for certiorari.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissents.
Page 394 U. S. 709
* 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) provides:
"Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.
The charge in this case is of an ancient vintage.
The federal statute under which petitioner was convicted traces its ancestry to the Statute of Treasons (25 Edw. 3) which made it a crime to "compass or imagine the Death of . . . the King." Note, Threats to Take the Life of the President, 32 Harv.L.Rev. 724, 725 (1919). It is said that one Walter Walker, a 15th century keeper of an inn known as the "Crown," was convicted under the Statute of Treasons for telling his son: "Tom, if thou behavest thyself well, I will make thee heir to the CROWN." He was found guilty of compassing and imagining the death of the King, hanged, drawn, and quartered. 1 J. Campbell, Lives of the Chief Justices of England 151 (1873).
In the time of Edward IV, one Thomas Burdet who predicted that the king would "soon die, with a view to alienate the affections" of the people was indicted for "compassing and imagining of the death of the King," 79 Eng.Rep. 706 (1477) -- the crime of constructive treason [Footnote 1] with which the old reports are filled.
Page 394 U. S. 710
In the time of Charles II, one Edward Brownlow was indicted "for speaking these words, that he wished all the gentry in the land would kill one another, so that the comminalty might live the hetter." 3 Middlesex County Rec. 326 (1888). In the same year (1662), one Robert Thornell was indicted for saying "that, if the Kinge did side with the Bishops, the divell take Kinge and the Bishops too." Id. at 327.
While our Alien and Sedition Laws were in force, John Adams, President of the United States, en route from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Quincy, Massachusetts, stopped in Newark, New Jersey, where he was greeted by a crowd and by a committee that saluted him by firing a cannon.
A bystander said, "There goes the President and they are firing at his ass." Luther Baldwin was indicted for replying that he did not care "if they fired through his ass." He was convicted in the federal court for speaking "sedicious words tending to defame the President and Government of the United States" and fined, assessed court costs and expenses, and committed to jail until the fine and fees were paid. See J. Smith, Freedom's Fetters 270-274 (1956).
The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters, and I had thought we had done with them forever. [Footnote 2]
Page 394 U. S. 711
Yet the present statute has hardly fared better.
"Like the Statute of Treasons, section 871 was passed in a 'relatively calm peacetime spring,' but has been construed under circumstances when intolerance for free speech was much greater than it normally might be."
Note, Threatening the President: Protected Dissenter or Political Assassin, 57 Geo.L.J. 553, 570 (1969). Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 871 have been sustained for displaying posters urging passersby to "hang [President] Roosevelt." United States v. Apel, 44 F.Supp. 592, 593 (D.C.N.D.Ill.1942); for declaring that "President Wilson ought to be killed. It is a wonder some one has not done it already. If I had an opportunity, I would do it myself." United States v. Stickrath, 242 F.1d 1, 152 (D.C.S.D. Ohio 1917); for declaring that "Wilson is a wooden-headed son of a bitch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power, I would put him there," Clark v. United States, 250 F.4d 9 (C.A. 5th Cir.1918). In sustaining an indictment under the statute against a man who indicated that he would enjoy shooting President Wilson if he had the chance, the trial court explained the thrust of § 871:
"The purpose of the statute was undoubtedly, not only the protection of the President, but also the prohibition of just such statements as those alleged in this indictment. The expression of such direful intentions and desires, not only indicates a spirit of disloyalty to the nation bordering upon treason, but is, in a very real sense, a menace to the peace and safety of the country. . . . It arouses resentment
Page 394 U. S. 712
and concern on the part of patriotic citizens."
United States v. Jasick, 252 F.9d 1, 933 (D.C.E.D. Mich.1918). Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution.
[Footnote 1]
The prosecution in those cases laid bare to the juries that the treasonous thoughts were the heart of the matter;
"the original of his Treasons proceeded from the imagination of his heart; which imagination was, in itself, High-Treason, albeit the same proceeded not to any overt fact: and the heart being possessed with the abundance of his traitorous imagination, and not being able so to contain itself, burst forth in vile and traitorous Speeches, and from thence to horrible and heinous actions."
Trial of Sir John Perrot, 1 How.St.Tr. 1315, 1318 (1592).
"[T]he high treason charged, is the compassing or imagining (in other words, the intending or designing) the death of the king; I mean his NATURAL DEATH; which being a hidden operation of the mind, an overt act is any thing which legally proves the existence of such traitorous design and intention -- I say that the design against the king's natural life, is the high treason under the first branch of the statute, and whatever is evidence, which may be legally laid before a jury to judge of the traitorous intention, is a legal overt act; because an overt act is nothing but legal evidence embodied upon the record."
Trial of Thomas Mardy, 24 How.St.Tr.199, 894 (1794). And see 84 Eng.Rep. 1057 (1708).
For a discussion of the adequacy of mere words as overt acts see 3 W. Holdsworth, History of English Law 203 (1927).
[Footnote 2]
"In the Sedition Act cases, the tendency of words to produce acts against the peace and security of the community was stretched to its utmost latitude. Likewise, judges and juries, in their willingness to presume evil intent on the part of Republican writers, largely nullified the safeguards erected by the Sedition Act itself. Criticism of the President and Congress -- in which every American indulges as his birthright -- was severely punished; yet this practice manifestly has only a remote tendency to injure and bring into contempt the government of the United States. In short, much that has become commonplace in American political life was put under the ban by the Federalist lawmakers and judges of 1798."
J. Miller, Crisis in Freedom 233 (1951).
MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE HARLAN joins, dissenting.
The Court holds, without hearing, that this statute is constitutional and that it is here wrongly applied. Neither of these rulings should be made without hearing, even if we assume that they are correct.
Perhaps this is a trivial case because of its peculiar facts and because the petitioner was merely given a suspended sentence. That does not justify the Court's action. It should induce us to deny certiorari, not to decide the case on its merits and to adjudicate the difficult questions that it presents.
"Follow the Money"
-
Deep Knight
- Posts: 5397
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 4:42 am
- Location: Washington DC
Re: Inside Information
My e-mail letter to Capitol police Chief Michael J. Fallon (who's listed in the press releases about Hal Turner's arrest). Deep Knight is a "live and let live" kinda guy, but some things just go over the line. For example, anti-Semitic websites (over the years I've complained about several and a few were taken down - 1 a NESARA site) and idiots who bend reality like this guy does. We laughed about this posting here (the Spitzer one posted above), but it may be useful in court (see my text) and I would really like to see this guy be held accountable for the garbage he spews.
Sir:
I realize that you may not be involved in the details of the Hal Turner case (yours was simply the only name in the press releases) - if you could please forward this to the correct person I would appreciate it. Thank you.
I am a moderator at a financial fraud Internet site named Quatloos that has been following the posting of a person who goes by the pseudonym "Patrick Bellringer." He frequently posts Hal Turner material, which has been discussed on our forum. I would like to bring a post from November of 2007 to your attention because it regards threats to public officials that may be germane to the present case brought by your State. In brief, he claimed that Elliot Spitzer, then governor of New York, was intimidated into changing his public policy by physical threats. The incident was fictitious, but his advocacy of this type of action was evident from his comments. Also, we felt that such advocacy was inherently dangerous because it told readers that intimidating actions produced tangible results.
When his arrest was discussed on our forum, this came back up and I searched his site for a copy but it wasn’t there (scrubbed?). However, I found copies of it all over the web by searching for the first part of the title (“New York State Governor Physically Intercepted”). It is also on the Bellringer site (http://www.fourwinds10.com), and a copy of this posting (dated November 13, 2007, http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data ... 1195053706 ) is below.
Thank you.
Sir:
I realize that you may not be involved in the details of the Hal Turner case (yours was simply the only name in the press releases) - if you could please forward this to the correct person I would appreciate it. Thank you.
I am a moderator at a financial fraud Internet site named Quatloos that has been following the posting of a person who goes by the pseudonym "Patrick Bellringer." He frequently posts Hal Turner material, which has been discussed on our forum. I would like to bring a post from November of 2007 to your attention because it regards threats to public officials that may be germane to the present case brought by your State. In brief, he claimed that Elliot Spitzer, then governor of New York, was intimidated into changing his public policy by physical threats. The incident was fictitious, but his advocacy of this type of action was evident from his comments. Also, we felt that such advocacy was inherently dangerous because it told readers that intimidating actions produced tangible results.
When his arrest was discussed on our forum, this came back up and I searched his site for a copy but it wasn’t there (scrubbed?). However, I found copies of it all over the web by searching for the first part of the title (“New York State Governor Physically Intercepted”). It is also on the Bellringer site (http://www.fourwinds10.com), and a copy of this posting (dated November 13, 2007, http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data ... 1195053706 ) is below.
Thank you.
"Follow the Money"
-
Deep Knight
- Posts: 5397
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 4:42 am
- Location: Washington DC
Re: Inside Information
I received a reply last night from Chief Fallon thanking me and telling me he had sent my message on to the investigators. He thought that this would be valuable for the same reasons I detailed in my note. As I understand it, over 100 people have contacted the investigators with information, many of them personal threats (if so, why is this guy out on bail?). There's a thread about this on Daily KOS (yes Big Daddy, I know, referencing this blog proves I'm a Stalinist troll) http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/4/10924/12012 which is interesting to read.
Now, if we could only find someway to get the authorities to have a similar interest in Dove & Co.'s financial scamming.
Now, if we could only find someway to get the authorities to have a similar interest in Dove & Co.'s financial scamming.
"Follow the Money"
-
Deep Knight
- Posts: 5397
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 4:42 am
- Location: Washington DC
Re: Inside Information
From PagPawnt Forum (which is neither pag nor paw, but we'll let that pass). It seems that Cap'n May is upset because making death threats against federal judges isn't being tolerated anymore. My question, why is Casper part of his "ghost troop?"
HAL TURNER vs. CHICAGO FBI
-- By Captain Eric H. May --
* * * * * * * * *
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable" -- John F. Kennedy
* * * * * * * * *
-- First Amendment Fiasco --
6/26/2009 (62629) -- The First Amendment is doing its job when it protects Neocon propagandist Michael Savage as he delivers genocidal rants demanding that the U.S. nuke Arabs for Israel. It protects Glenn Beck when he equates 9/11 Truthers with terrorists. It protected the LA Times after it published the notorious "Shooting Bush" editorial cartoon on July 20, 2003: http://www.why-war.com/files/politicsshootingbush.jpg. More recently, on Feb. 18, it protected Ruppert Murdoch's New York Post, which offered a "Dead Monkey" editorial cartoon that encouraged racism and assassination at the same time: http://krmg.com/images/2009/02/monkey_l.jpg.
It protected the Jewish Defense League when it published a worldwide screed against Revisionist David Cole, a Jew who had investigated inconsistencies in the Holocaust narrative at Auschwitz and other infamous German concentration camps. The JDL urged the "elimination" of Cole and posted a bounty for information on his whereabouts in its David Cole: Monstrous Traitor, http://www.codoh.com/cole/traitor_amer.html.
For some reason the First Amendment doesn't protect Hal Turner, though, when he argues in favor of the Second Amendment, and says that federal judges in Chicago who are aiming to undermine gun rights are traitors, and should be killed: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 9524.story.
-- Bogeyman and Buddy --
Hal Turner is the latest right wing bogeyman to be picked out by an Obama administration eager to increase police power and reduce individual rights. By arresting and charging him they are developing their thesis that right-wingers are, ipso facto, terrorists. Historically, mind you, terror and tyranny have come from the left as often as from the right. Obama's Justice Department seems quite as eager as the Bush League to stifle free speech. Since Obama's election, MSNBC presstitutes have been as willing to try dissidents in the media as the FOX bushmen ever were.
I did an interview with Turner about the Battle of Baghdad cover-up by the mainstream media, which took place at the beginning of the Iraq war. It was the real story behind the cover story of Private Jessica Lynch. I found him to be the best informed radio host in America on that issue, and others. After our interview, he offered me an hour slot, gratis, to broadcast a weekly Ghost Troop Hour. I gave his kind offer serious consideration, but declined, not wanting to be associated with his racism.
The truth about Turner -- or Oswald, von Brunn and bin Laden -- is something for the intelligent reader to find for himself. As a first step to doing so, I recommend laughing off media-programmed half-witted hecklers who think anything not in the paper is conspiracy theory. I try to approach the mainstream media the same way that I used to translate Pravda: with cynicism. The MSM is simply state-controlled propaganda, to be scanned carefully for the coincidences and contradictions that reveal its encrypted truths. Its Pulitzers are simply Orders of Lenin, fit for Charles Krauthammer or Judith Miller, but beneath the dignity of Hal Turner, in my book. He understands all this quite well, I have no, and he makes sure that his listeners and readers understand it, too. That's the reason he's in trouble now.
-- Trainwrecks and Terror --
Turner was ordered to appear before a Chicago judge earlier this week, on June 22. That was during NORTHCOM's Ardent Sentry terror exercise, which simulated railroad catastrophes. There was a railroad catastrophe in Washington D.C. on June 22. It killed Maj. Gen. David F. Wherley Jr., who had been in charge of Washington D.C.'s air defenses during 9/11. A couple of days earlier the Chicago area had a mysterious railroad explosion, also during Ardent Sentry. It's possible that exercise had live components, including the two train incidents, the assassination of Wherley and the distraction of Turner. It's also possible that the public was programmed to accept train tragedy, since the folks who run Hollywood remade The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, releasing it June 12. It was about terrorism on a train, and it premiered just in time for Ardent Sentry.
Ghost Troop, which last week was attacked by CNN, has agreed with FBI analysts that Chicago is the most likely terror target in America. The unit has successfully predicted five petrochemical explosions in the Houston area, leading Lone Star Iconoclast publisher W. Leon Smith to print Time to Investigate Houston Is Now, http://lonestaricon.com/AbsoluteNM/anmviewer.asp?a=2525, exhorting Congress to investigate their record.
Is the Chicago FBI up to no good? Is that why the Feds are so about dissidents with loud mouths and loud speakers? The notion of a false flag attack on Chicago is catching on, as Portland's KBOO public radio station demonstrated in KBOO FM Supports Chicago False Flag Scenario, http://tinyurl.com/d3msoc. Turner has been fiercely agitating against gun restrictions in Chicago, and gun ownership is the greatest of obstacles to a false flag attack followed by martial law.
For more on false flag terror prospects, I recommend an article co-authored by three distinguished military veterans and me: Chicago's Nuclear Obama, http://tinyurl.com/dyhnle.
* * * * * * * * *
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their 'constitutional' rights of amending it or their 'revolutionary' right to dismember or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln
* * * * * * * * *
Captain May, a disabled veteran, is a former Army intelligence and public affairs officer, as well as a former NBC editorialist. For his article and interview archives, including the July 5, 2006 interview with Hal Turner, go to Ghost Troop Cyber Militia: http://www.spiritone.com/~ghosttroop/Ca ... H_May.html. CNN's attack piece against the unit was Some suspect conspiracy in Holocaust Museum case, http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/16/mus ... index.html.
HAL TURNER vs. CHICAGO FBI
-- By Captain Eric H. May --
* * * * * * * * *
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable" -- John F. Kennedy
* * * * * * * * *
-- First Amendment Fiasco --
6/26/2009 (62629) -- The First Amendment is doing its job when it protects Neocon propagandist Michael Savage as he delivers genocidal rants demanding that the U.S. nuke Arabs for Israel. It protects Glenn Beck when he equates 9/11 Truthers with terrorists. It protected the LA Times after it published the notorious "Shooting Bush" editorial cartoon on July 20, 2003: http://www.why-war.com/files/politicsshootingbush.jpg. More recently, on Feb. 18, it protected Ruppert Murdoch's New York Post, which offered a "Dead Monkey" editorial cartoon that encouraged racism and assassination at the same time: http://krmg.com/images/2009/02/monkey_l.jpg.
It protected the Jewish Defense League when it published a worldwide screed against Revisionist David Cole, a Jew who had investigated inconsistencies in the Holocaust narrative at Auschwitz and other infamous German concentration camps. The JDL urged the "elimination" of Cole and posted a bounty for information on his whereabouts in its David Cole: Monstrous Traitor, http://www.codoh.com/cole/traitor_amer.html.
For some reason the First Amendment doesn't protect Hal Turner, though, when he argues in favor of the Second Amendment, and says that federal judges in Chicago who are aiming to undermine gun rights are traitors, and should be killed: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 9524.story.
-- Bogeyman and Buddy --
Hal Turner is the latest right wing bogeyman to be picked out by an Obama administration eager to increase police power and reduce individual rights. By arresting and charging him they are developing their thesis that right-wingers are, ipso facto, terrorists. Historically, mind you, terror and tyranny have come from the left as often as from the right. Obama's Justice Department seems quite as eager as the Bush League to stifle free speech. Since Obama's election, MSNBC presstitutes have been as willing to try dissidents in the media as the FOX bushmen ever were.
I did an interview with Turner about the Battle of Baghdad cover-up by the mainstream media, which took place at the beginning of the Iraq war. It was the real story behind the cover story of Private Jessica Lynch. I found him to be the best informed radio host in America on that issue, and others. After our interview, he offered me an hour slot, gratis, to broadcast a weekly Ghost Troop Hour. I gave his kind offer serious consideration, but declined, not wanting to be associated with his racism.
The truth about Turner -- or Oswald, von Brunn and bin Laden -- is something for the intelligent reader to find for himself. As a first step to doing so, I recommend laughing off media-programmed half-witted hecklers who think anything not in the paper is conspiracy theory. I try to approach the mainstream media the same way that I used to translate Pravda: with cynicism. The MSM is simply state-controlled propaganda, to be scanned carefully for the coincidences and contradictions that reveal its encrypted truths. Its Pulitzers are simply Orders of Lenin, fit for Charles Krauthammer or Judith Miller, but beneath the dignity of Hal Turner, in my book. He understands all this quite well, I have no, and he makes sure that his listeners and readers understand it, too. That's the reason he's in trouble now.
-- Trainwrecks and Terror --
Turner was ordered to appear before a Chicago judge earlier this week, on June 22. That was during NORTHCOM's Ardent Sentry terror exercise, which simulated railroad catastrophes. There was a railroad catastrophe in Washington D.C. on June 22. It killed Maj. Gen. David F. Wherley Jr., who had been in charge of Washington D.C.'s air defenses during 9/11. A couple of days earlier the Chicago area had a mysterious railroad explosion, also during Ardent Sentry. It's possible that exercise had live components, including the two train incidents, the assassination of Wherley and the distraction of Turner. It's also possible that the public was programmed to accept train tragedy, since the folks who run Hollywood remade The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, releasing it June 12. It was about terrorism on a train, and it premiered just in time for Ardent Sentry.
Ghost Troop, which last week was attacked by CNN, has agreed with FBI analysts that Chicago is the most likely terror target in America. The unit has successfully predicted five petrochemical explosions in the Houston area, leading Lone Star Iconoclast publisher W. Leon Smith to print Time to Investigate Houston Is Now, http://lonestaricon.com/AbsoluteNM/anmviewer.asp?a=2525, exhorting Congress to investigate their record.
Is the Chicago FBI up to no good? Is that why the Feds are so about dissidents with loud mouths and loud speakers? The notion of a false flag attack on Chicago is catching on, as Portland's KBOO public radio station demonstrated in KBOO FM Supports Chicago False Flag Scenario, http://tinyurl.com/d3msoc. Turner has been fiercely agitating against gun restrictions in Chicago, and gun ownership is the greatest of obstacles to a false flag attack followed by martial law.
For more on false flag terror prospects, I recommend an article co-authored by three distinguished military veterans and me: Chicago's Nuclear Obama, http://tinyurl.com/dyhnle.
* * * * * * * * *
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their 'constitutional' rights of amending it or their 'revolutionary' right to dismember or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln
* * * * * * * * *
Captain May, a disabled veteran, is a former Army intelligence and public affairs officer, as well as a former NBC editorialist. For his article and interview archives, including the July 5, 2006 interview with Hal Turner, go to Ghost Troop Cyber Militia: http://www.spiritone.com/~ghosttroop/Ca ... H_May.html. CNN's attack piece against the unit was Some suspect conspiracy in Holocaust Museum case, http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/16/mus ... index.html.
"Follow the Money"
-
Deep Knight
- Posts: 5397
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 4:42 am
- Location: Washington DC
Re: Inside Information
UPDATE ON HAL TURNER
June 30, 3009
Family of Hal Turner Mailing Address:
1234 Blowitoutyour Rd.
North Heck, NJ 07047
email: enablers.hal.turner@fmail.com
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Update 6/30/09
There was supposed to be a Bail Hearing today (June 30, 2009). The Hearing was postponed due to a power problem at the Courthouse. Unfortunately, Hal is still in jail. We don't know when the Bail Hearing will be rescheduled.
Hal is in poor spirits. We need your support and prayers. Any and all donations would be greatly appreciated. Please send donations to:
Pee Turner
1234 Blowitoutyour Rd.
North Heck, NJ 07047
June 30, 3009
Family of Hal Turner Mailing Address:
1234 Blowitoutyour Rd.
North Heck, NJ 07047
email: enablers.hal.turner@fmail.com
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Update 6/30/09
There was supposed to be a Bail Hearing today (June 30, 2009). The Hearing was postponed due to a power problem at the Courthouse. Unfortunately, Hal is still in jail. We don't know when the Bail Hearing will be rescheduled.
Hal is in poor spirits. We need your support and prayers. Any and all donations would be greatly appreciated. Please send donations to:
Pee Turner
1234 Blowitoutyour Rd.
North Heck, NJ 07047
"Follow the Money"
-
Deep Knight
- Posts: 5397
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 4:42 am
- Location: Washington DC
Re: Inside Information
HAL TURNER UPDATE: July 9, 2009 / Murder Threats & First Amendment
July 11, 2009
UPDATE 7/9/09
Hal is en route to Chicago. He was unexpectedly put in shackles and handcuffs, and removed from Essex County Jail very early Wednesday morning. His destination was unknown to him at this time. He was driven to an Air Force Base and put on a military plane, where they all sat on the runway for 2 hours. The plane finally took off, landed several hours later, and he was taken to a Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, where he awaits transfer to Chicago.
They never even let him call his family or attorney before they took him. He is not in good spirits at all. In New Jersey, he was able to see his family; but, now, being so far away, he can't even do that. We are worried and pray for his safety.
Donations are coming in very slowly. We have received approximately 10% of our $45,000 goal. We have a long way to go. We thank all of you that have sent donations, prayers, and support in this trying time. Without your help, we will not be able to pay for his defense. We deeply appreciate your love, support and prayers. PLEASE, KEEP THOSE DONATIONS COMING!
Hal is fighting, not only to protect his own First Amendment rights, but to protect yours as well! Hey, you media people...THIS MEANS YOU TOO!
Please send your donations to:Pee Turner
1234 Blowitoutyour Rd.
North Heck, NJ 07047
We are also setting up a cash-in account so donations can be accepted on-line.
Thank you again for your support. God Bless You All!
The family of Hal Turner
family-of-hell.blogspot.com/2009/07/update-7090.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update July 10th 2009
#1 First Amendment Attorney in US backs Hal Turner
Martin Garbus, one of the country's top First Amendment attorneys, has joined Hal Turner's Legal Defense Team. He is joining Michael Orozco of Bozo & Orozco, LLC. Together, Mr. Orozco and Mr. Garbus will make an unbeatable team. We have every confidence that Hal will prevail.
Click HERE for Martin Garbus' article which appears in the Huffington Post on July 7, 2009.
Hal's defense will cost a lot of money. We desperately need your help. Remember that your First Amendment Rights are at stake here too. If you like being able to speak or write your opinion about something without fear, please help Hal.
You can donate by clicking on the CHIPIN box on the left of this page, or you can send cash, check, or money order to:
Pee Turner
1234 Blowitoutyour Rd.
North Heck, NJ 07047
Thank you again for all your support and prayers.
Hal's Family
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murder Threats and First Amendment
by Martin Garbus
July 7th 2009
Martin Garbus is a Trial lawyer, author of six books on the Supreme Court and constitutional law
A very important First Amendment case, one that may soon reach the Supreme Court, is beginning its legal path.
Here's how it started. On June 2, 2009, Hal Turner, a radio talk show host considered by civil rights organizations to be a white supremacist, wrote on his blog that three named Federal Appeals Court judges, who upheld a handgun ban, deserved to die. The addresses, phone numbers, and work place locations were given to the reader. "These judges deserve to die. . . ." "Observe the Constitution or die," he wrote. He never said he would kill the judges and never attempted to. When arrested, he had a shotgun, 3 handguns and 150 hollow point bullets. He claimed to have a permit for the guns, but the bullets are illegal. He was brought to court in an orange jumpsuit, handcuffs and shackles. Bail was set at $200,000 -- he is in a Newark jail.
He had previously been arrested for threatening lawmakers involved in a decision relating to the Catholic Church. He has a long history of attempted incitement, but so far as I know, no one has been incited by him.
Twenty-two days later, even though apparently no attempt was made to damage the lives of the three judges by Turner or anyone else, Turner was arrested. He will undoubtedly assert a First Amendment claim when he appears in court next Thursday.
The federal government's criminal complaint states that the charges will range from death threats to attempted assault to attempted murder.
The case has two separate elements. First, the arrest of Turner on the basis that he might kill the judges. Secondly, the arrest of Turner because he might incite others to kill. I believe his arrest and conviction on either ground is not justified.
Under existing First Amendment law, he is probably protected. Should he be? 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.
If we imagine that instead of Mr. Turner, a Vietnam or Iraq war protester says on television, or radio or his blog, that the president deserves to die. He says, "The blood of the president must flow, and his failure to protect democracy requires that he die." It would be protected. If he says it before an armed mob standing outside the White House ready to rush the guards, it would not be protected.
Present First Amendment law arises mostly out of cases dealing with the threats of mob violence. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case decided in June 1969, exactly 40 years ago, where there was a Ku Klux Klan mob armed with shotguns, rifles and ammunition, the Court stated the test is whether the speech to the mob was incitement to imminent lawless action.
The prohibition against falsely "Shouting Fire" in a crowded theatre is the ordinary person's understanding of what First Amendment law tests are. It is the popular way of describing the test that the danger must be imminent. Shouting Fire is the title of an HBO film that is presently airing (full disclosure: my daughter, Liz Garbus, directs it, and I am in it) and specifically deals with some of these issues. It dramatically shows the possibility of theatergoers being trampled after "Shouting Fire" is cried and why the speaker can be punished. The danger is clearly imminent.
But Mr. Turner's case is different, and as the years go by, threats of all kinds will become more common in all media. They seem today to come from the Right. Joe the Plumber recently said Senator Dodd of Connecticut should be hanged.
The Internet both permits it and encourages the maker of the "true threat" for it now permits wilder language than the regular media and it can reach significantly more people. And the threat of course gets further exposure when the news media reports an arrest.
In the Hal Turner case, you have a specific threat aimed at a specific person giving specific information on how to find that person. In effect, so, too, did Joe the Plumber. It is true that once one's name is given, the Internet Googler can probably have gotten the names and addresses of those being threatened (maybe not as easy with judges) but Turner's placing it there makes it easier for a potential killer who is encouraged by having this extra information and endorsement.
But Mr. Turner (and Joe the Plumber) are part of the political dialogue of the country. Turner is not a private person saying that another private person should be killed, where the test must be different. We presume Mr. Turner has a constituency that may or may not act on his threats. It is also true that the potential killer may ask if it's so important for the judge to die, why didn't Mr. Turner do it or try and arrange it. It may be true that even before Mr. Turner posted the information, a number of other people may have had the same thoughts. But Mr. Turner's language may push some people over the edge.
Some scholars are seeking to create a new test for cases such as Mr. Turner's. They are trying to create a new way of approaching the particularized true threat law. They might conclude that it requires both a subjective and objective test. The threat would need to be very fact specific. Did he specifically intend that the person be killed, did he have reasonable belief that it would lead to a killing, and was his belief reasonable that the person would be killed? Mr. Turner might fail that test. I reject this approach. I reject any test that minimizes the concept of "imminent" as a necessity in order to avoid the First Amendment.
I find it a very troubling and difficult case.
A legal truism is that bad cases make bad law. The exact test of what is and what is not a true threat will certainly be developed more carefully in the next few years. Nonetheless, I believe even if the facts alleged against Turner are true, the First Amendment should be available as a defense.
Martin Garbus is a First Amendment lawyer.
July 11, 2009
UPDATE 7/9/09
Hal is en route to Chicago. He was unexpectedly put in shackles and handcuffs, and removed from Essex County Jail very early Wednesday morning. His destination was unknown to him at this time. He was driven to an Air Force Base and put on a military plane, where they all sat on the runway for 2 hours. The plane finally took off, landed several hours later, and he was taken to a Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, where he awaits transfer to Chicago.
They never even let him call his family or attorney before they took him. He is not in good spirits at all. In New Jersey, he was able to see his family; but, now, being so far away, he can't even do that. We are worried and pray for his safety.
Donations are coming in very slowly. We have received approximately 10% of our $45,000 goal. We have a long way to go. We thank all of you that have sent donations, prayers, and support in this trying time. Without your help, we will not be able to pay for his defense. We deeply appreciate your love, support and prayers. PLEASE, KEEP THOSE DONATIONS COMING!
Hal is fighting, not only to protect his own First Amendment rights, but to protect yours as well! Hey, you media people...THIS MEANS YOU TOO!
Please send your donations to:Pee Turner
1234 Blowitoutyour Rd.
North Heck, NJ 07047
We are also setting up a cash-in account so donations can be accepted on-line.
Thank you again for your support. God Bless You All!
The family of Hal Turner
family-of-hell.blogspot.com/2009/07/update-7090.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update July 10th 2009
#1 First Amendment Attorney in US backs Hal Turner
Martin Garbus, one of the country's top First Amendment attorneys, has joined Hal Turner's Legal Defense Team. He is joining Michael Orozco of Bozo & Orozco, LLC. Together, Mr. Orozco and Mr. Garbus will make an unbeatable team. We have every confidence that Hal will prevail.
Click HERE for Martin Garbus' article which appears in the Huffington Post on July 7, 2009.
Hal's defense will cost a lot of money. We desperately need your help. Remember that your First Amendment Rights are at stake here too. If you like being able to speak or write your opinion about something without fear, please help Hal.
You can donate by clicking on the CHIPIN box on the left of this page, or you can send cash, check, or money order to:
Pee Turner
1234 Blowitoutyour Rd.
North Heck, NJ 07047
Thank you again for all your support and prayers.
Hal's Family
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murder Threats and First Amendment
by Martin Garbus
July 7th 2009
Martin Garbus is a Trial lawyer, author of six books on the Supreme Court and constitutional law
A very important First Amendment case, one that may soon reach the Supreme Court, is beginning its legal path.
Here's how it started. On June 2, 2009, Hal Turner, a radio talk show host considered by civil rights organizations to be a white supremacist, wrote on his blog that three named Federal Appeals Court judges, who upheld a handgun ban, deserved to die. The addresses, phone numbers, and work place locations were given to the reader. "These judges deserve to die. . . ." "Observe the Constitution or die," he wrote. He never said he would kill the judges and never attempted to. When arrested, he had a shotgun, 3 handguns and 150 hollow point bullets. He claimed to have a permit for the guns, but the bullets are illegal. He was brought to court in an orange jumpsuit, handcuffs and shackles. Bail was set at $200,000 -- he is in a Newark jail.
He had previously been arrested for threatening lawmakers involved in a decision relating to the Catholic Church. He has a long history of attempted incitement, but so far as I know, no one has been incited by him.
Twenty-two days later, even though apparently no attempt was made to damage the lives of the three judges by Turner or anyone else, Turner was arrested. He will undoubtedly assert a First Amendment claim when he appears in court next Thursday.
The federal government's criminal complaint states that the charges will range from death threats to attempted assault to attempted murder.
The case has two separate elements. First, the arrest of Turner on the basis that he might kill the judges. Secondly, the arrest of Turner because he might incite others to kill. I believe his arrest and conviction on either ground is not justified.
Under existing First Amendment law, he is probably protected. Should he be? 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.
If we imagine that instead of Mr. Turner, a Vietnam or Iraq war protester says on television, or radio or his blog, that the president deserves to die. He says, "The blood of the president must flow, and his failure to protect democracy requires that he die." It would be protected. If he says it before an armed mob standing outside the White House ready to rush the guards, it would not be protected.
Present First Amendment law arises mostly out of cases dealing with the threats of mob violence. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case decided in June 1969, exactly 40 years ago, where there was a Ku Klux Klan mob armed with shotguns, rifles and ammunition, the Court stated the test is whether the speech to the mob was incitement to imminent lawless action.
The prohibition against falsely "Shouting Fire" in a crowded theatre is the ordinary person's understanding of what First Amendment law tests are. It is the popular way of describing the test that the danger must be imminent. Shouting Fire is the title of an HBO film that is presently airing (full disclosure: my daughter, Liz Garbus, directs it, and I am in it) and specifically deals with some of these issues. It dramatically shows the possibility of theatergoers being trampled after "Shouting Fire" is cried and why the speaker can be punished. The danger is clearly imminent.
But Mr. Turner's case is different, and as the years go by, threats of all kinds will become more common in all media. They seem today to come from the Right. Joe the Plumber recently said Senator Dodd of Connecticut should be hanged.
The Internet both permits it and encourages the maker of the "true threat" for it now permits wilder language than the regular media and it can reach significantly more people. And the threat of course gets further exposure when the news media reports an arrest.
In the Hal Turner case, you have a specific threat aimed at a specific person giving specific information on how to find that person. In effect, so, too, did Joe the Plumber. It is true that once one's name is given, the Internet Googler can probably have gotten the names and addresses of those being threatened (maybe not as easy with judges) but Turner's placing it there makes it easier for a potential killer who is encouraged by having this extra information and endorsement.
But Mr. Turner (and Joe the Plumber) are part of the political dialogue of the country. Turner is not a private person saying that another private person should be killed, where the test must be different. We presume Mr. Turner has a constituency that may or may not act on his threats. It is also true that the potential killer may ask if it's so important for the judge to die, why didn't Mr. Turner do it or try and arrange it. It may be true that even before Mr. Turner posted the information, a number of other people may have had the same thoughts. But Mr. Turner's language may push some people over the edge.
Some scholars are seeking to create a new test for cases such as Mr. Turner's. They are trying to create a new way of approaching the particularized true threat law. They might conclude that it requires both a subjective and objective test. The threat would need to be very fact specific. Did he specifically intend that the person be killed, did he have reasonable belief that it would lead to a killing, and was his belief reasonable that the person would be killed? Mr. Turner might fail that test. I reject this approach. I reject any test that minimizes the concept of "imminent" as a necessity in order to avoid the First Amendment.
I find it a very troubling and difficult case.
A legal truism is that bad cases make bad law. The exact test of what is and what is not a true threat will certainly be developed more carefully in the next few years. Nonetheless, I believe even if the facts alleged against Turner are true, the First Amendment should be available as a defense.
Martin Garbus is a First Amendment lawyer.
On the whole, it sounds a lot better and faster than my last flight...He was driven to an Air Force Base and put on a military plane, where they all sat on the runway for 2 hours. The plane finally took off, landed several hours later...
"Follow the Money"
-
ClemIsBack
Re: Inside Information
It's hard to believe the skinheads on his site couldn't come up with a lousy 200 grand.Bail was set at $200,000 -- he is in a Newark jail.
He could be on the run right now. Instead, he'll be bunking with Bubba.
-
LaVidaRoja
- Basileus Quatlooseus
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:19 am
- Location: The Land of Enchantment
Re: Inside Information
I think I feel sorry for Bubba
Little boys who tell lies grow up to be weathermen.
-
ClemIsBack
Re: Inside Information
If Bubba is a 6'8" 275 pound black Jewish former pro wrestler guy ... Turner's days are numbered. We can only hope Bubba is gay too.