By Reason Foundation
, Free Minds and Free Markets
-
June 25, 2009
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
OPINION: Radio Host Hal Turner Arrested for Making Online Threats
Sticky
"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," Mr. Turner wrote in a blog entry on June 2. "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions."
I am in conflict here. I suppose this man should be free to say these things. But if someone acts out and is a listener or web follower of this man, then he should be an accomplice. We have seen a good bit of arguing this lately in the Tiller case. In Tiller however, the inciters of hatred against him have been protected. So where do we draw the line?
Turner is being very explicit in his choice of words. Killed, blood, die. Not vote, send a letter, call your congress . He's not sitting around at a backyard BBQ saying this, he is sending this message out to countless people whom he doesn't know. He has no knowledge of their predisposition to act out on his words. His words are reprehensible and careless, but are they actually criminal?
- tek June 25, 2009 2:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Also
"Here's what they look like. Here's where they live. Here's their home phone number. Here's their work address. Here's the exact room where they sit in court."
He's printing an instruction manual. This goes beyond the line of free speech and gets into conspiracy to commit murder .
- quantummechanik
June 25, 2009 2:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
not at this time
My personal feelings of course say "conspiracy to commit". But in the actual application as has recently been the case, so far, the "inciters" have been protected. This has been played out in the exact same fashion with the only difference being someone did die. And the result was entirely different.
I noticed the bit about it being federal judges protected. Should they be more important than a doctor or ditch digger (no offense intended to ditch diggers)? More questions spring forth the more I think about this.
- tek June 25, 2009 3:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Very touchy.
You're right tek. I would hate to be a judge on this one. I am vastly biased in favor of the Constitution, but there is precedent with regard to inciting "imminent lawless action" as pointed out in the article.
While I believe his speech was protected, sad as that is, I can see how you might say for a public figure to take the next step and post pictures, addresses, and phone numbers is crossing the line. Though I guess it's for the courts to decide whether that meets the definition of inciting "imminent lawless action."
All in all, as much as I despise his white supremacist views, I would be inclined to err in favor of free speech if I could not show the intent.
- LagerHead
June 25, 2009 3:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
err in favor of free speech
As difficult as it is for me to say this, I wholly agree.
- tek June 25, 2009 3:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
there is no base.
the courts decide what they want. There is no basis for truth. The people need to step up reform. people get shot everyday because they are poor. No one cares, Even though their only crime , is being poor, it is not an issue. that is outrageous. Then you have a responsible official doing illicit things. they should be killed. but you have a problem with that?
- jxzac June 25, 2009 3:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
he should not be accoplice to murder.
should you put Socrates Einstein, and Jesus on trial too. I think not. if all three judges were executed. Put on trial those who comminted the legal crime of murder , assassination, ect. You're a horrible person to suggest Hal Turner should have any legal responsibility in that. THe judges should be in fear of people. If they're going to be corrupt in their doing, hopefully the people have enough power to kill them. If they die, so much the better. That's their houses, that's where they live. IF someone's going to risk their fredom to do something, well, in most likely hood, it was for some REASON.
- jxzac June 25, 2009 3:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In what warped reality
have you made the logical connection to Socrates, Einstein and Jesus, and this person here? Explain that to me--walk us through that.
- quantummechanik
June 27, 2009 9:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.