CT: Radio host arrested, charged for blog entry
There is no doubt that incitement to violence is prosecutable and will not be protected by the 1st Amendment so this guy was clearly asking for trouble
"Reactionary radio host and white supremacist Hal Turner was taken into custody Wednesday after remarks urging Catholics to "take up arms" against two Connecticut lawmakers and a state ethics official over legislation being considered in the state legislature regarding the church. Connecticut Capitol police got a warrant for Turner's arrest. The Hartford Courant fills in the details:Turner, who has been identified as a white supremacist and anti-Semite by several anti-racism groups, hosts an Internet radio program with an associated blog. On Tuesday, the blog included a post that promised to release the home addresses of state Rep. Michael Lawlor, state Sen. Andrew McDonald and Thomas Jones of the State Ethics Office.
"Mr. Turner's comments are above and beyond the threshold of free speech," Capitol Police Chief Michael J. Fallon said in an e-mail announcing the warrant. "He is inciting others through his website to commit acts of violence and has created fear and alarm. He should be held accountable for his conduct."
The remarks on the blog were a reaction to the recent controversy over a bill that would have changed the way the Roman Catholic Church is governed, taking power away from church officials and turning it over to lay members. It was pulled in mid-March following an outcry from Catholics across the state and questions about its constitutionality.
Liberal blogger John Amato at CrooksandLiars highlights Turner's blog posting in which he suggested that the lawmakers be made "an example of as a warning.""It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals personally," the blog stated. "These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die."
And, the post continued, "If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this; I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too."
Source
17 comments:
The government can not change how the Church is governed. That is a clear violation of the seperation clause (albeit imaginary) in the Constitution.
I don't know about this. Thinking about it from today's perspective, this seems like a no-brainer, but I can't help thinking about the founding of this country and the convictions people had on both sides of the revolution debate. While I would prefer that people settle disputes through non-violent means such as debate and negotiation, I can't help but remember the words of some slaver from Virginia:
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
I remember the Kelo decision and remember thinking that if there is any reason to take up arms against the government this is it. Now when I expressed this, some of my friends were a bit dismayed. However, isn't that the right granted to us by the Declaration of Independence. That if we try and fight for what is right, then it shouldn't matter what tact we take.
I don't think this guy is in the right, but who are we really to say. The best disinfectant for speech we disagree with is more speech, not more restrictions on that speech.
Also, I have a hard time pressing any sort of charges with an actual body.
*without an actual body.
This guy, unfortunately, crossed the line by advocating an violent attack on the institution.
You'll notice one of the first things the Framers of the Constitution did was make Treason a capital offense! Calling for the violent overthrow of the government is always illegal, even under the 1st Amendment.
This guy was not advocating for the redress of some wrong - he was advocating death for those who proposed an idea that he didn't like.
I agree that this one was over the line, the bill had already been pulled because it was obviously going to be thrown out if it passed so the bad idea was dead already.
There was no reason to threaten the lawmakers further.
A finding of treason requires some sort of action on the part of the individual.
Again, unless there is a corpse or a victim that has sustained some sort of physical injury, I have a tough time going after anyone.
Then again, I think that all laws should be based on someone directly having a negative effect on someone's life, liberty, or property. Outside of a direct negative effect, everything should be allowed.
"Again, unless there is a corpse or a victim that has sustained some sort of physical injury, I have a tough time going after anyone."
So, you do nothing until someone gets killed? Unbelievable.
"So, you do nothing until someone gets killed? Unbelievable."
Ever ask the cops about enforcing a restraining order?
Most white-supremacists are really careful with what they say in public because they can easily be sued if one of their members commits a violent act. Some even remove themselves as leaders of their organizations and choose to act as "consultants" to avoid any legal liabilities.
And can anyone explain to me why is the government trying to pass bills that take church authority away from their rightful leaders and instead give it to the lay members?
"You'll notice one of the first things the Framers of the Constitution did was make Treason a capital offense! Calling for the violent overthrow of the government is always illegal, even under the 1st Amendment.".... Stan
So how does that square with,
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Did the framers think that taking our government back could be done by debate and negotiations? Does anyone seriously think politicians can be talked into giving up their power and wealth? And, if you think voting is the answer, then you are as foolish as the politicians think you are, especially since we're now ruled by a one-party system.
"And can anyone explain to me why is the government trying to pass bills that take church authority away from their rightful leaders and instead give it to the lay members?"
Because lay members are more easily controlled.
There was no reason to threaten the lawmakers further. It could keep them from coming up with anymore hair brain ideas. I have always thought the dumb ideas should be tracked back the the source and thats the man you need to shot. Stormewaters
Maybe a good begining would be if you started calling your self an American instead of a black American.
I think he's calling himself a "black american" to reminds us that not all blacks are left-wing.
"We already knew that. In fact, most blacks are not left-wing at all. (strongly anti-gay) They simply support the Democrats because they get more out of them."
---I think most blacks are left-wing because most of them support affirmative action and welfare and 90% of them always vote for the democrats. I don't know about the gay stuff, Colin Powell has never been a friend of gays yet lately he's no friend of Rush Limbaugh, conservative republicans, the right to bear arms, I don't know what's wrong with him.
Dick Cheney on the other had is a friend of conservatives, and although he does support same-sex marriage (because of his daughter) I think he remains a conservative on almost every other issue.
"Colin Powell has never been a friend of gays yet lately he's no friend of Rush Limbaugh, conservative republicans, the right to bear arms, I don't know what's wrong with him. "
He is rational.
More like Colin Powell sides with the Leftists and against what is right on way too many issues.
Post a Comment