The Difference Between 'They Should Die' and 'I'll Kill You'

Jacob Sullum | June 25, 2009

Yesterday the FBI arrested a white supremacist in New Jersey for threatening federal judges, based on his online response to the recent 7th Circuit decision that said the Second Amendment does not constrain state and local governments. Here is a description of the crime that Hal Turner, an Internet radio host, committed:

"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."

He said the three judges, William J. Bauer, Frank H. Easterbrook and Richard A. Posner, should be made "an example" of in order to send a message to the rest of the federal judiciary: "Obey the Constitution or die."

Mr. Turner also posted the judges' photographs, phone numbers, work addresses and courtroom numbers.

There is no indication that Mr. Turner or anyone else acted on his warnings. Nonetheless, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in an affidavit that it believed his comments constituted "a threat to assault or murder a United States judge."

This does not seem like a "true threat," one kind of speech the Supreme Court has said can be punished without violating the First Amendment. Turner did not actually threaten to commit violence; he simply argued that violence would be justified. What he said seems closer to incitement, except that in this case there is no threat of "imminent lawless action," one of the requirements imposed by the Court. Unless I'm missing something, what Turner said ought to be protected speech.

What do you think? Does the posting of photographs and information about the judges make a crucial difference?

As The New York Times notes, Turner's arrest is reminiscent of the "Nuremberg Files" case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a $109 million civil judgment against the operators of website that arguably encouraged violence against abortion providers. In 1999 I argued that the website should be protected by the First Amendment, the position that a 9th Circuit panel endorsed before it was overturned by the full court.

Comments

..|6.25.09 @ 1:24PM|#

Does the posting of photographs and information about the judges make a crucial difference?

Yes. It separates Turner from the run-of-the-mill crackpot.

|6.25.09 @ 1:27PM|#

Does the posting of photographs and information about the judges make a crucial difference?

Isn't that information freely available in the public sphere anyway, especially considering they are Federal judges?

Even if this guy exhorted people to kill the judges, I still consider that free speech. Suggesting that people perform an illegal act should not be illegal. What about people who suggest that people perform civil disobedience? Should they be arrested?

Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 1:28PM|#

It separates him but it does not mean that he should be arrested for a threat of assault or murder because he did not threaten to assault or murder them.

Naga Sadow|6.25.09 @ 1:30PM|#

Epi,

Charles Manson would be an interesting case.

Fluffy|6.25.09 @ 1:30PM|#

This is actually a tough one for me.

On the one hand, I can definitely see where one could have a perfectly protected discussion about when violence against officials of a government is justified, and when it's not. For example, we could sit around here all day and talk about whether or not the population of Iran would be morally justified in rising up and killing members of the government of Iran - and the speech would be totally protected. Even though it would be illegal for us to hatch a conspiracy to actually kill Iranian government officials.

On the other hand, one could argue that many white supremacist groups have moved to the point where they are in direct opposition to the government, so a statement that would be theoretical and academic in nature if we made it here would not be theoretical and academic if made in a conversation between members of a white supremacist group. If I say, "These named government officials deserve to be killed," after I've formed a revolutionary group, it's incitement in a way it wouldn't be if I was just shooting the breeze about the relationship of Man and the State.

stuartl|6.25.09 @ 1:32PM|#

What about people who suggest that people perform civil disobedience?

Suggesting murder is quite different from suggesting civil disobedience. I'm not sure if it should be illegal, but calling for murder and posting pictures and addresses certainly is pushing the limits.

..|6.25.09 @ 1:33PM|#

"It would be a shame if anything were to happen to these judges who I said should die (wink wink). Here's what they look like and where they work. Not that they should be killed (wink wink)."

Mullah Abu|6.25.09 @ 1:34PM|#

"What about people who suggest that people perform civil disobedience? Should they be arrested?"

Yes.

I, Kahn O\'Clast|6.25.09 @ 1:35PM|#

I am torn over this one. I am a big believer in free speech .... But let's assume for a moment that I told a friend of mine that he should go kill someone because that person did something that I consider objectionable. If my friend did commit the crime I suspect that I would be viewed as at least an accomplice. This is not all that different....

|6.25.09 @ 1:36PM|#

I really hate defending douchebag racist scumbag assholes* like this.

Fortunately, in this case I don't really have to. I think he was inciting violence. From the info contained in the artile, I'd vote to convict him of that.

Fuck him!

* And I've done it here before.

DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.25.09 @ 1:39PM|#

Don't judges (by proxy) threaten the lives of others? Don't they direct people with guns to use force to get their way?

Just asking.

|6.25.09 @ 1:40PM|#

What do you think? Does the posting of photographs and information about the judges make a crucial difference?

I don't think the photos and info which is publicly available make much of a difference.

I don't think he made a threat. Believing violence would be justified isn't a crime.

Matthew Tievsky|6.25.09 @ 1:42PM|#

I think we all agree that if I said, "that convicted murderer deserves to die," that would be protected speech. It's very hard to distinguish what this neo-nazi said. On what grounds--the fact that the 7th circuit judges are better people than a convicted murderer? But that's a viewpoint, and we can't distinguish between protected and unprotected speech on the basis of viewpoint.

Some Guy|6.25.09 @ 1:43PM|#

I think the line is drawn where a reasonable person might expect that saying this is likely to lead to someone killing one of the judges. I say he's guilty.

Juvenal|6.25.09 @ 1:43PM|#

Who judges the judges?

|6.25.09 @ 1:44PM|#

On second thought, though, the posting of the judges' personal info might make the difference. Arguably, that's an implicit message: "Go kill them."

DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist |6.25.09 @ 1:45PM|#

"On second thought, though, the posting of the judges' personal info might make the difference. Arguably, that's an implicit message: "Go kill them.""

Matthew,

Do you side with those who say Bill O'Reily should be held liable for giving out information about that abortion doctor who was murdered?

|6.25.09 @ 1:46PM|#

Sorry, but posting phone numbers, office addresses etc. along with the statement

'their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions'

sounds to me like a threat. I know I'd be pretty scared if it was directed to me.
If he'd said 'these folks deserve to hear from you about your disapproval--why don't you send them an email', that would be one thing.

But the combination of words like 'die' with information about locations ain't just 'free speech'. It's either a threat or incitement or both.

..|6.25.09 @ 1:46PM|#

Who judges the judges?

Allah?

|6.25.09 @ 1:47PM|#

While I don't think it's much of a crime, it could be argued that he is attempting to influence a judge through threats of force. As corrupt and illegitimate as I think the justice system is, it will never be functional if it's OK to threaten a judge in an overt fashion.

Three days in the stocks, rotten fruit to be furnished for the public on his dime.

Tricky Prickears|6.25.09 @ 1:48PM|#

"Clear and present danger" is the standard, I believe. Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) or "inciting or producing imminent lawless action" Brandenburg v. Ohio. (1969)

I would think that the combination of the two acts; his statements ("Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," ) combined with his actions (posted the judges' photographs, phone numbers, work addresses and courtroom numbers), crosses the threshold.

..|6.25.09 @ 1:50PM|#

It's settled then: he's guilty. Now on to more important things: Farrah Fawcett died!

|6.25.09 @ 1:50PM|#

Turner deserves to die, but he does not deserve to face these charges.

kinnath|6.25.09 @ 1:50PM|#

Same problem as opponents of abortion calling abortionists murderers; saying justice demands they be killed to prevent future murders; and then posting photos and addresses.

Skating right up to the edge without actually soliciting a crime.

robc|6.25.09 @ 1:55PM|#

But let's assume for a moment that I told a friend of mine that he should go kill someone because that person did something that I consider objectionable. If my friend did commit the crime I suspect that I would be viewed as at least an accomplice. This is not all that different....


Its very different. No one has killed the judges.

Fluffy|6.25.09 @ 1:55PM|#

Do you side with those who say Bill O'Reily should be held liable for giving out information about that abortion doctor who was murdered?

O'Reilly never said Tiller deserved to die.

I think the context of the conversation matters. As a practical matter, the question of whether a statement is incitement is partially dependent on who's listening to the statement. If you say, "These judges deserve to be killed," to three old nuns in a nursing home, it's not incitement. If you say, "These judges deserve to be killed," to members of a criminal association that has had members previously kill judges, it may be incitement.

If the girls at feministing write, "Sugarfree deserves to die," it is a different statement than if a Mafia don writes it.

strat|6.25.09 @ 1:55PM|#

I think the posting of information might begin to approach the "overt act" necessary in order for most authorities to attempt prosecution of a conspiracy charge.

That having been said, the lack of a clear distinction between someone's speech suggesting a convicted murderer should die and the same comment about judges seems quite germane.

|6.25.09 @ 1:58PM|#

There are plenty of hate sites, and even liberal web sites such as PETA who incite hostility on others. The FBI and police departments have done nothing to curtail the problem until it is some one in government that is at the bad end of the speech. I don't condone what Hal-turner did and even find it despicable. Most states now have sex offender sites that call for violence by the accusation only. History already has shown that deaths have resulted from the offender postings.
They are both wrong. Looks like a double standard to me.

Tricky Prickears|6.25.09 @ 1:59PM|#

Its very different. No one has killed the judges.

Solicitation of murder is illegal regardless of whether a murder was committed.

Team America|6.25.09 @ 1:59PM|#

This is an easy one:

If someone bumps off any the judges, because of what Turner said, then he's guilty; if nothing happens, then he's is not guilty.

|6.25.09 @ 1:59PM|#

If the girls at feministing write, "Sugarfree deserves to die,"

My initial reaction would be to object, but upon reflection I accept this as fair.

Team America|6.25.09 @ 2:00PM|#

@Tricky Prickears

Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.

robc|6.25.09 @ 2:02PM|#

Team America,

Or even attempts to bump off.

Although, to paraphase Sideshow Bob, they dont give a nobel prize for attempted physics.

Tricky Prickears|6.25.09 @ 2:05PM|#

Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.

I can agree with that but, trying to hire someone to kill your spouse so you can collect the insurance isn't "wrong". Thinking about it, and actively pursuing it, are two different things.

Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 2:08PM|#

"My initial reaction would be to object, but upon reflection I accept this as fair."

Fuck that! I don't want to be deprived of the intellectual goodness that is Sucralose just because some fat ugly bitch can't cook well enough to land herself a husband to give her purpose in life.

joe is on the advil thread!|6.25.09 @ 2:10PM|#

Frank -n- Weiner | June 25, 2009, 2:05pm | #

@joe from Lowell

If you're really joe, we've got some Obama questions for ya. Why not stick around...

joe from Lowell | June 25, 2009, 2:07pm | #

Now, be polite. I didn't come here and jack the thread, so don't you jack the thread, either.

Team America|6.25.09 @ 2:11PM|#

@robc

Everybody is responsible for their own actions, so even if X attempts or succeeds in bumping off Y, it was ultimately X's decision, even if Z incited him to do it.

If you think Z is a problem, incite X to bump off Z. Problem solved.

Anonymous person who doesn\'t |6.25.09 @ 2:13PM|#

What would a judge have to do for you to say that person deserves to die? Let us suppose that the USSC ruled 5 - 4 to make George W. Bush dictator for life, would you say those who ruled in his favor deserve to die?

Paraphrasing H.L. Mencken|6.25.09 @ 2:19PM|#

The threat of violence is what makes kings more benevolent than elected officials.

After all, there are always 2 ways to implement term limits.

Misleading headlines piss me o|6.25.09 @ 2:20PM|#

The Difference Between 'They Should Die' and 'I'll Kill You'

There is also a difference between "They Should Die" and "They Should be Killed".

Rib O\'Flavin|6.25.09 @ 2:21PM|#

Seconding the Manson comment. He never killed anybody- why is he serving a life sentence? He just told them to go do something freaky.

Tricky Prickears|6.25.09 @ 2:23PM|#

What would a judge have to do for you to say that person deserves to die? Let us suppose that the USSC ruled 5 - 4 to make George W. Bush dictator for life, would you say those who ruled in his favor deserve to die?

Only when all other legal and legislative options have been exhausted. This wasn't a SCOTUS ruling. It was the 7th Circuit.

I dislike Eich|6.25.09 @ 2:24PM|#

I never personally killed anyone, I was only giving orders.

jtuf|6.25.09 @ 2:25PM|#

Publicly identifying someone by name and saying he deserves to be killed is harasment at the very least.

creech|6.25.09 @ 2:26PM|#

Guilty or innocent, the legal bills will ruin this guy. Sometimes I think that's the sole purpose when government agents pull you in for questioning.

Anonymous person who doesn\'t |6.25.09 @ 2:27PM|#

"Only when all other legal and legislative options have been exhausted. This wasn't a SCOTUS ruling. It was the 7th Circuit."

And what percentage of cases even make it that far? Despite their relative fame only a small percentage of cases reach the USSC.

Contralibertarian|6.25.09 @ 2:27PM|#

More to the point: doesn't Tim Cavanaugh's endorsement of militant queer anti-Proposition 8 hate groups that post the names and addresses of Proposition 8 proponents in order to encourage others to harass and vandalize their dwellings and places of worship mean that militant anti-militant-queer people should likewise be allowed to say "Those traitor fags over at 'Reason' should be beaten and robbed at every town's end for endorsing those vile homos!" and then post the names and addresses of all these columnists and their families?

|6.25.09 @ 2:28PM|#

The pix and info is what did this guy in. Nothing agitates the powers-that-be more than things like that, which remove the veneer of their office and expose them as just people. It also makes them deal with consequences of what they're doing that are personal. The Statists expect to leave their responsibility for what they do at the office when they go home, not have any personal "skin-in-the-game" as a result of what they promulgate, regulate, or punish.

I am guessing you would find better constitutional tests for the courts if you were to say, post the same pictures and info and tell your misbegotten supporters to go picket them at their houses, or follow them around at grocery stores hounding them about the Second Amendment, essentially turn your minions into paparazzo-on-bureaucrat.

Doing such a thing would probably invite the same response from the State, which would be a much more interesting case.

I love Big Bro|6.25.09 @ 2:32PM|#

Just as one can not yell fire in a crowded theater, one can not disparage a judge.

This is America. Obey!

Patrick|6.25.09 @ 2:33PM|#

He could have approached it differently. Reasonable justification is an idea (free-speech). Inciting violence, giving address, phone and personal information is an attempt to locate and perform an action.

Besides, he's from NJ.

That Guy|6.25.09 @ 2:36PM|#

If this was a political figure doing the same thing to a private citizen, would those of you defending this man under free speech still feel the same way? Just curious.

squarooticus|6.25.09 @ 2:38PM|#

I've got a different question: why is the characterization of his views as "white supremacist" germane?

That seems to me like inserting "black" between "Obama, the" and "president of the United States" whenever he gave a speech on poverty.

|6.25.09 @ 2:42PM|#

How is saying "this guy deserves to die" different than "I want a patriotic America to shoot this crapweasel"? I am not sure there is much of a difference. The second statement is definitely an incitement to violence. My gut says that what this guy did was not a threat. But then I can't point to a good reason how what he said wasn't an incitment to other people to commit violence.

|6.25.09 @ 2:43PM|#

Phone numbers? Meh. Knowing a phone number doesn't facilitate murder.

Pictures? Weak at best.

Office addresses? That are public record? Still weak.

A meh and two weaks doesn't strip his statement of First Amendment protections.

Now, if he had published their home addresses, I would be more concerned. As it is, though, this strikes me as an expression of opinion, absent any affirmative act toward carrying out what he advocates. Note that he didn't say he was planning to kill them, only that their murder would be justified.

If this was a political figure doing the same thing to a private citizen, would those of you defending this man under free speech still feel the same way?

Yes.

squarooticus|6.25.09 @ 2:47PM|#

I look at incitements to violence the way my mother taught me about peer pressure: "If Johnny told you to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it?" Of course not: telling someone to commit a crime without coercing them into doing so or providing them material aid is not a crime, regardless of what the US code, state codes, or case law have to say about it. Why? Simple: such statements are indistinguishable from protected speech.

(Aside: I don't have enough information to know whether Manson provided material aid or actively coerced those who performed the murders.)

|6.25.09 @ 2:53PM|#

I've got a different question: why is the characterization of his views as "white supremacist" germane?

You do that to differentiate them from the black supremacists and the woman supremacists and the Latino supremacists. Not that they are ever referred to properly anyway.

You have to be able to note the only type of supremacist that the left objects to.

(For you low-reading-comprehension types... this is not an endorsement of white supremacists.)

|6.25.09 @ 2:56PM|#

Hmmm, some judges who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution issue a ruling that chips away at the Bill of Rights. Someone says that this assault on our liberties means the judges should be killed 'pour encourageur les autres'.

And many of the good folks at Hit 'N Run say the person who advocates using our Second Amendment rights to defend our other rights against infringement by the government should be locked up by the government.

I get the impression that if those who call for locking up this guy lived in the 1770's, they be calling for hanging those "traitors" who signed the Declaration of Independence.

I say the first step to starting the revolution to regain our freedom will be killing legislators and judges who violate their oaths to defend the Constitution.

OK, now should I be locked up for exercising my free speech like that?

No? How about if I accompany it with (publicly available) information about the Hawaii congressional delegation?

kinnath|6.25.09 @ 2:57PM|#

Manson was teaching revolution and then sent his adherents out to start the revolution -- so yeah, I consider him to be co-conspirator.

This is completely different than a "radio personality" yapping on a public blog; particularly when the yapping includes many allusions to famous political statements.

As ugly as it is, this was protected speech.

MattXIV|6.25.09 @ 2:57PM|#

I think that's as close as you can get to incitement without crossing the line. The identifying information is circumstatial evidence of encouraging specific illegal action, but to complete the case, I think you'd need an example of a person Turner thought would actually go out and kill one of the judges.

Ben|6.25.09 @ 3:04PM|#

Does the posting of photographs and information about the judges make a crucial difference?

...since it is allowed for sex offenders as an added situation post conviction and the SCOTUS has declared that it isn't a burden, problem or punishment, it should be allowed for judges. To quote the government, "it's just a listing so we can know where these people are."

And furthermore, the no fly list, and the no-buy list, are other examples of the government's theory that it is perfectly ok to list people without any sort of due process.

What's good for the goose...

The identifying information is circumstatial(sic) evidence of encouraging specific illegal action

No it isn't. The supreme court said so.

It's just a list. Perfectly harmless. No due process required. Don't worry about it.

|6.25.09 @ 3:06PM|#

While I don't think it's much of a crime, it could be argued that he is attempting to influence a judge through threats of force. As corrupt and illegitimate as I think the justice system is, it will never be functional if it's OK to threaten a judge in an overt fashion.

Attempting to influence a judge to quit violating our constitutional rights via threats of violence makes our "justice" system * less * functional? Really? Seems like we need way, way more of this, until judges and legislators are rightfully afraid to abuse us and strip us of our rights.

|6.25.09 @ 3:11PM|#

SO, I have to ask. Has the press said anything about this guy's involvement in Libertarian politics and his role as old campaign manager for Libertarian/"Ron PauL Republican" favorite Sabrin?

Sotomayor|6.25.09 @ 3:11PM|#

You do that to differentiate them from the black supremacists and the woman supremacists and the Latino supremacists. Not that they are ever referred to properly anyway.

La Raza, bitches!

Kelly W. Patterson|6.25.09 @ 3:12PM|#

O'reilly wouldn't have been arrested even if he had said Tiller deserved to die or that someone should kill him. At worst, he would have been fired and that would have been temporary.

And Manson wasn't convicted because he suggested that someone kill people. He was convicted because the prosecution convinced the jury that he brainwashed the people who committed the murders to the point that he was in control of them and therefore played an active role in the commission of the crimes.

Saying that someone deserves to be killed shouldn't be an arrestable offense, even if you are an asshole and aren't famous.

|6.25.09 @ 3:13PM|#

prolefeed,

If we had an armed insurrection every time a troika of liberal judges made a stupid decision, it would get mighty tiring. When SCOTUS formally refuses to incorporate the 2nd like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, then I'll think about putting in the clips.

|6.25.09 @ 3:16PM|#

Oh, did I mention I got my M-1A back from the gunsmith? Tweaked out the trigger, triple-checked the action, anti-corrosive coating on exposed parts, lubricating coating on working parts.

Suh-weet!

PC|6.25.09 @ 3:17PM|#

There's alot of anti gay, jew hating racists in Iran right now chanting death to their perceived dictatorship. They have been getting arrested too.

hmm|6.25.09 @ 3:18PM|#

I'm so going to federal prison.

I don't think English is a requirement to be a judge.

|6.25.09 @ 3:30PM|#

...since it is allowed for sex offenders as an added situation post conviction and the SCOTUS has declared that it isn't a burden, problem or punishment, it should be allowed for judges. To quote the government, "it's just a listing so we can know where these people are."

This might be an apt analogy if the government posted the pictures and addresses of sex offenders, and added the comment that "These people deserve to be killed."

Or if a private citizen posted the same observation, coupled with a link to the sex offender registry site.

Fluffy|6.25.09 @ 3:34PM|#

I get the impression that if those who call for locking up this guy lived in the 1770's, they be calling for hanging those "traitors" who signed the Declaration of Independence.

Well, no. But I would certainly acknowledge that if you start an armed insurrection and your armed insurrection fails to topple the government, you've committed a crime and I would not expect, "It is my free speech right to start a revolution," to work as a criminal defense.

I say the first step to starting the revolution to regain our freedom will be killing legislators and judges who violate their oaths to defend the Constitution.

OK, now should I be locked up for exercising my free speech like that?

No. Not until we reach the point where it becomes feasible that your speech would be effective.

No? How about if I accompany it with (publicly available) information about the Hawaii congressional delegation?

If the audience you're addressing has previously killed members of the Hawaii congressional delegation, then yes - this is the point at which I think you're openly advocating insurrection and have stepped across the line.

I think this guy's best defense will be to claim no institutional continuity between what he does and the white supremacist groups that have killed judges. "Those other white supremacist groups actually kill judges, not my group, so what I was doing was just talk." That would be a reasonable defense. I don't know enough about the personalities and groups involved to be sure.

But let's say there was a biker gang or something that was angry about its members being put in jail in the courts of certain judges, and so members of that biker gang started to kill judges. If a member of that biker gang posted on the internet, "Judge Smith just put my brother in jail, Judge Smith deserves to die now too," that simply has to be incitement, or we're setting the bar too high.

|6.25.09 @ 3:54PM|#

Ugh... all I can say is... ugh.

What an idiot. What an IDIOT.

What that guy does not understand is that the 7th Circuit ruled that the 2nd Amendment wasn't applicable was because it (correctly) understands that it is an inferior court. As an inferior court it is not up to them to rule against precedent established by the Supreme Court. It is up to the Supreme Court to review precedent in Presser v. Illinois, Cruikshank V. US, and the slaughterhouse cases. In fact, the majority opinion inferred that SCOTUS should do just that.

Even if the 7th court's opinion wasn't well reasoned, killing judges would accomplish nothing. As long as the People at large do not understand the Constitution and their rights, they will continue to place judges that misinterpret the Constitution. The US has a long history of judges who have done this over and over again.

I would have had more respect for this IDIOT if he had said that a time machine should be invented so that "somebody" could go back in time and kill Chief Justice John C. Marshall before he could hand down Marbury v. Madison. That would make more sense.

It goes to show that both nuts and non-nuts really don't understand where everyone stands with respect to the Constitution.

For the record, my personal opinion is that the 2nd Amendment restrictions does apply to the states because fo the P&I clause in the 14th Amendment. (i.e. The stare decisis in the Slaughterhouse cases should be reversed) SCOTUS should have applied "strict scrutiny" to the 2nd Amendment. Heller v. DC was poorly written and the 2nd Amendment compromised to secure a 5-4 vote. Commercial restrictions to firearm ownership is just another way of saying "Jim Crow".

Have a nice day Mr. White Supremicist IDIOT. I hope you've learned a valuable lesson... one you have not learned from history.

The tallest blade of grass is the first to get cut.

|6.25.09 @ 3:59PM|#

I say the first step to starting the revolution to regain our freedom will be killing legislators and judges who violate their oaths to defend the Constitution.

OK, now should I be locked up for exercising my free speech like that?

No. Not until we reach the point where it becomes feasible that your speech would be effective.

So, if someone does go out and try to kill a judge or legislator (and maybe succeeds in doing so) and when interrogated afterwards says he saw these comments by prolefeed and decided, "damn right! Let's do it!" -- you'd be OK with me being locked up?

|6.25.09 @ 4:04PM|#

Even if the 7th court's opinion wasn't well reasoned, killing judges would accomplish nothing. As long as the People at large do not understand the Constitution and their rights, they will continue to place judges that misinterpret the Constitution.

People who hold anti-constitutional views would be far less willing to apply for judgeships if they knew they were likely to get killed for ignoring the constitution. Sitting judges would be considerably more nervous about straying from the clear language in the constitution.

Or are you saying that judges are immune from the desire for self-preservation?

|6.25.09 @ 4:26PM|#

I believe any media that labels a white person a "white supremest" while calling Obama a black community organizer is fomenting hate against the white race! Look at the church that Obama attended and there stated purpose!

There is no difference between the two.

pons asinorum|6.25.09 @ 4:28PM|#

Now if his speech functions like a line of Robert Frost poetry that triggers an expected response from a known Bronsonlike character...yes, he's very guilty.

It will be the duty of the gov't to show he was being very specific in his unspecificness. My guess now is that the preponderance of White Supremacists are coward actors as a very small minority.

|6.25.09 @ 4:38PM|#

prolefeed...

In our current political climate it is much more likely that they will waterboard the IDIOT in Guantanamo.

Look at what happened at Ruby Ridge. It's a prime example. The federal government actually had the gall to state their position that a federal employee could not be tried with a state crime (murder in this case).

Where was the media outrage over this? Where were the masses of people threatening violence in response this tyrranical position?

Get my point? The People are a bunch of sheep.

People have a misguided sense of what constitute liberty nowadays and this IDIOT shot himself in the foot.

Elemenope|6.25.09 @ 4:46PM|#

So, if someone does go out and try to kill a judge or legislator (and maybe succeeds in doing so) and when interrogated afterwards says he saw these comments by prolefeed and decided, "damn right! Let's do it!" -- you'd be OK with me being locked up?

You're misunderstanding the standard. The standard is not whether the speech in fact incited the act, but whether it was reasonable to believe that the speech would incite the act. It is entirely possible for a speech to incite something due to a fluke of [insane audience member/spooky charisma/wacky mojo] without it being reasonable to expect that the speech would in fact cause the reaction.

Think of movies that "inspire" crazy people to commit crimes. They don't go after the movies as incitement even though in a bare factual sense they did incite the act.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.25.09 @ 4:47PM|#

Figured I'd be a pedant and point out that Manson reportedly did kill somebody - a drifter who stayed at the ranch for a while and who's body I think eventually turned up in a canyon.

But obviously for the main body of murders, he only said "fly my pretties!"

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.25.09 @ 4:48PM|#

sigh: whose body

M. Rebmann|6.25.09 @ 4:49PM|#

The most important thing in this case is to err on the side of liberty. Perhaps the inflammatory speech crosses a line, most likely a moral line. However, if this line for breaking the law is moved to include this type of talk, the line will surely move again to encompass even more benign speech that is anti-government.

hmm|6.25.09 @ 4:52PM|#

What that guy does not understand is that the 7th Circuit ruled that the 2nd Amendment wasn't applicable was because it (correctly) understands that it is an inferior court. As an inferior court it is not up to them to rule against precedent established by the Supreme Court.

What's the precedent set by the USSC? Isn't a difference of opinion and holdings among the Federal Appellate courts one of the reasons for elevation to the USSC? So, if there is a precedent from the USSC why would it get elevated. The 5th and the 7th disagree with the 9th (WTF is up with that decision) so off to the USSC it is most likely to go (whatshispuss from DC v. Heller has a writ in for the 7th ruling). The DC v. Heller is being construed as only applying to federal constraints and not the states because of DC's standing as a commonwealth. Appellate courts rule on things all the time w/o precedent from the USSC and using their own precedent or other reasons. Most Federal courts have held that the 2nd is not applicable through due process to the states. Due process is completely fucked at this point and manipulated for political reasons.

At least that is how my lil' brain understands it.

|6.25.09 @ 4:52PM|#

When are the Feds going to arrest Andrew Cuomo for releasing names and addresses of AIG bonus recipients who refused to pay them back?

Ben|6.25.09 @ 4:55PM|#

This might be an apt analogy if the government posted the pictures and addresses of sex offenders"

typical pictures and addresses here

...and added the comment that "These people deserve to be killed.

typical government encouragment for them being put to death here

more

...so there you have it.

Government representatives saying "they deserve to die" and government representatives causing them to be listed, addresses and pictures and more.

|6.25.09 @ 5:05PM|#

hmm...

Well reasoned points.. I think the reason the 7th circuit deliberately ruled contrary to the 9th circuit so a conflict could exist causing the issue to get elevated to the level of SCOTUS. If there aren't any conflicting opinions, its unlikely to get elevated.

SCOTUS has to clean up the mess. They need to kill the stare decisis of the slaughterhouse cases. This has broader constitutional implications.

|6.25.09 @ 5:09PM|#

hmm...

Presser v. Illinois:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the state.

Cruikshank v. US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)[1] was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitutional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

|6.25.09 @ 5:09PM|#

What makes this guy a white supremacist? Is he against illegal imigration, or has he actually stated he thinks "whites" are superior to the other nonwhite races?

Or is he just to the right of a liberal Democrat and therefore a racist? (I don't know jack about this guy - probably shows, eh? Spose I could research first...)

|6.25.09 @ 5:10PM|#

The butcher job SCOTUS did on the P&I clause of the 14th Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse_Cases

The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities clause affected only rights of United States citizenship and not state citizenship.

|6.25.09 @ 5:12PM|#

14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

|6.25.09 @ 5:15PM|#

If this was a political figure doing the same thing to a private citizen, would those of you defending this man under free speech still feel the same way? Just curious.

If anyone puts out your personal information for the purpose of enabling other people to possibly murder you...you've got the right to kill them for it. That's a Constitutional right. (I believe in that living Constitution thing that lets you do whatever you want)

Muggs|6.25.09 @ 5:16PM|#

This joker was just in trouble in Connecticut for threatening a couple of state reps over a bill that would have given lay people more control in the Catholic Church.

http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/11/hate-blogger-hal-turner-turns-himself-in-to-connecticut-police/

Ben|6.25.09 @ 5:19PM|#

My position is that all speech should be protected. Period.

The "fire in a theater" issue is addressed by laws that punish you for trampling others; threats and slander and the like are imaginary wounds not deserving of concrete remedies.

The only speech that should be controlled is speech that is so loud it causes physical damage via overpressure. So you shouldn't be able to scream in someone's ear, or put up a 140 db sound system on main street.

The poster above who said his mother asked him "if someone asked you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" Has put their finger directly on the issue here; if you kill someone, you're guilty of killing them. If someone *says* go kill someone, and you do it with no actual (ie real)compensation from the person (money, goods, position) then you're the one who killed the person, and it's ALL your fault.

If, on the other hand, someone says, "I'll give you $100 to jump off that bridge", and they do, *and* you jump, they're complicit. If you don't jump, then they're out $100 and no crime has been committed by anyone.

Or, if they're in command authority over you with what you believe to be an ability to punish your disobedience (army, mafia, often the clergy) and they say "kill this person" and you do... then they're complicit, but you're STILL guilty of killing.

Crime isn't speech. It is action. All crime is action. The pathological tendency for our "representatives" to criminalize thought and discussion and opinion and rhetoric is part of the massive slide away from liberty and into mommystatehood.

There are so many reasons not to suppress speech I couldn't even begin to cover them all in a reply here. It'd be more of a book than a blog post or comment.

I realize this doesn't reflect the law; this is the way things should be, though.

Ben|6.25.09 @ 5:32PM|#

If this was a political figure doing the same thing to a private citizen, would those of you defending this man under free speech still feel the same way?

Not in the case of our federal or state governments, neither of which are a person. Our federal government has very few authorized powers, and that isn't one of them. Most - I'd say well over 99% - of the ways our federal government actually exercises power have no basis in any authorizing document or other formal act of the citizens, it is simply the same kind of arbitrary exercise of power as any third world tin pot dictatorship. As for the states, I don't know of any that are constitutionally authorized at the state level to act as a person, either.

The government absolutely may not speak for me. The fact that the government is not obeying its constituting authority causes me to take the further position that I would not even contemplate the government speaking for me until it is brought to heel. Which I consider *extremely* unlikely.

For the same reasons, I don't see that the government has any authority to speak about someone else, either. None. Zero. Nada. Zip.

hmm|6.25.09 @ 6:17PM|#

Oh, did I mention I got my M-1A back from the gunsmith? Tweaked out the trigger, triple-checked the action, anti-corrosive coating on exposed parts, lubricating coating on working parts.

Suh-weet!

I'm considering a M1 Garand from CMP. Cheap, government provided guns! Well government mandated. Need to be a part of an affiliated organization, but heh I'm already on lists. What's one more.

I wonder if the M1 constitutes an assault weapon? Will government have to ban a program under its own mandate?

Robert|6.25.09 @ 7:05PM|#

Considering my NJ cx, it's a cinch he's at least a friend of a friend. His name is familiar.

Federal judges, right? Well, how else do you get rid of them? They continue to serve "during good behavior", which is a matter of opinion, and unfortunately the Constitution provided no regular means for their removal, so assassination is tacitly endorsed by the Constitution; I mean, that's what they had to have in mind, right? They didn't feel a need to write it in, it's obvious.

Not that I view the present case as a call for assassination. How many times has someone opined "they should die" without meaning "kill them"? It's a commonplace. And posting of phone numbers, addresses, and pictures is also a commonplace in urging people to let their public masters know such-and-such. Therefore there must be a way of combining both communications without its being taken as a death threat. And if there is such a way, that's the way it must be understood, because of the presumption of innocence. Most people who say those things together or separately in fact don't intend them as death threats.

|6.25.09 @ 7:49PM|#

Fluffy-

(quoting prolefeed) "OK, now should I be locked up for exercising my free speech like that?"

No. Not until we reach the point where it becomes feasible that your speech would be effective.

How does any individual determine that what a second individual said was a determinative factor in a third person's action?

For instance, if I said, "That prolefeed dude is just completely awesome!!! I think prolefeed's 2:56 post has inspired a complete change in thinking about my relationship w/ the Gov't. In fact, I now think it might even be appropriate for me to attempt to murder Mayor Mike Coleman tomorrow at 5:00 AM- just because prolefeed would probably also think it would be appropriate."

You just read it on the Internet, so you know it's true... :o)

So. If I now actually shoot Mayor Mike at 5AM tomorrow, would it *now* be "feasible" that prolefeed's "speech" was "effective" and he(she?) is somehow responsible/liable for "inciting" me?

Really?

Mike S.|6.25.09 @ 8:07PM|#

Very simply, Hal Turner did not threaten anyone, and being arrested by the FBI, it seems that a recent Pravda article about the USA falling fast into a Communism is becoming increasingly real.

|6.25.09 @ 8:20PM|#

hmmm...

Doesn't matter whether or not M1 Garands are classified as assault weapons from an Insurrectionist perspective.

If they outlaw them, you'll break the law anyways and keep them. In any case, for insurrectionist purposes... you'll be outgunned anyways, unfortunately.

The true purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amendment is that of an insurrectionist philosophy. The problem here that incrementalism has taken us to a point where what the common man owns today probably would be enough to overthrow tyrrany in this country.

To this extent, the 2nd Amendment is a litmus test of the People's perceptions of freedom, liberty, and "trust" in their fellow man. Tyrrany in this country won't happen overnight, but it can and probably will happen with the consent of the People. You can't fight that.

The country's attack on the 2nd Amendment is an indicator of when to leave.

|6.25.09 @ 8:21PM|#

PS: I don't have a Garand but I do have a Springfield Armory M1A. I love the thing. I love to bump fire it with a 20 round mag. Sadly enough, I don't shoot anymore because the price of ammo skyrocketed.

Ben|6.25.09 @ 9:32PM|#

In any case, for insurrectionist purposes... you'll be outgunned anyways, unfortunately.

This is entirely incorrect, and results from simplistic thinking about how an insurrection would have to manifest itself.

All you need to do is look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq... to see many instances of various populaces, barely armed at all, keeping various degrees ahead of very heavily armed and trained military forces.

One issue is that most expensive pieces of equipment, quite difficult to replace, are vulnerable to very inexpensive destructive devices.

Another one is that there is a presumption that some of the populace must be left alone to do things like farm, run the infrastructure, etc. So they can't just be mowed down.

Another issue is a huge imbalance in things that need to be achieved. While the heavily armed folks are trying to figure out who is on which side out of 300 million citizens, all the insurrection has to do is either remove or otherwise stop the actions of 545 political figures at the federal level, and perhaps a similar number multiplied by the number of states, all the while publicizing why they're doing it, and what needs to be done so that the replacements don't receive the same treatment.

Jet planes, bombs, nukes, and aircraft carriers are of little (or no) use in such a conflict. And there's the additional issue of just which portions of the military would side with whom; that's not entirely clear, either.

The case can be easily be made that the insurrection (if properly formed) is defending the constitution, while the government is guilty of destroying it. The government, in its lack of wisdom, has provided excellent rationales with things like the disingenuous inversion of the commerce clause, multiple instances of ex post facto law, and various corrosion of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments. Not to mention failure to use article V when they wanted a change; they just perverted article III into a magical "SCOTUS can make anything happen" clause.

If the case is made well and truthfully, I think it's a coin flip as to which way a military unit might go.

This is the beginning of military oath for enlistment (and for commissioned officers):

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...

There's more, including obeying the president, but if the one is in conflict with the other... well, the constitution comes first.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the military is sworn to the constitution, and that the "domestic enemy" at hand is that force that has been damaging the constitution and its application to the country. So which way would the military turn?

Such a thing would come down to just how well the case is made to everyone - military, public, the government. But so far, no one has even vaguely tried, much less seriously. And I doubt anyone will. The cost would be brutally high; and this is no longer a country of colonists, struggling to survive and inured to death as a common companion. No, we're very rich, we expect to live long lives, and that leads to being very complacent and risk averse. And -- personally -- I think that means no insurrection. No matter what the toads in government do, and no matter how irritated those of us who are actually paying attention may get.

|6.25.09 @ 9:35PM|#

I know Hal Turner, personally. I met him during the Sabrin for Governor campaign years ago here in NJ.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but he was a douche then, and seems like he has not improved a bit.

No, he was not a libertarian, (L or l), but a republican cave dweller from Hudson County who hated Christy Whitman and wanted to damage her chances of re-election any way he could.

Turner is one of those folks that thinks they are gods gift to life, and feel they therefore have the right, if not the obligation, to bully people into doing what he thinks is right.

No one on the campaign liked him. Even when Murry went a bit off into the right wing. If I recall correctly, he was not there at the end, or if so, just hanging around the periphery.

These things he is charged with do not surprise me, they just seem like an extension of what he was saying and doing way back then.

He deserves whatever he gets for making these threats.

JB|6.26.09 @ 12:15AM|#

Publishing public information is now against the law according to the FBI.

If the courts agree, basically there is no longer any First Amendment.

JB|6.26.09 @ 12:19AM|#

Publicly identifying someone by name and saying he deserves to be killed is harasment at the very least.

That's fucking retarded.

Everyone deserves to die. And you know what? They get to. Every single person in this world is killed at some point.

JB|6.26.09 @ 12:21AM|#

How is saying "this guy deserves to die" different than "I want a patriotic America to shoot this crapweasel"? I am not sure there is much of a difference. The second statement is definitely an incitement to violence. My gut says that what this guy did was not a threat. But then I can't point to a good reason how what he said wasn't an incitment to other people to commit violence.

That paragraph incites me to want to commit violence. Should you be arrested, John?

hmm|6.26.09 @ 12:22AM|#

Doesn't matter whether or not M1 Garands are classified as assault weapons from an Insurrectionist perspective.

the sarcasm was dry. Sorry. ;-)

If they outlaw them, you'll break the law anyways and keep them. In any case, for insurrectionist purposes... you'll be outgunned anyways, unfortunately.

Well ya. I can buy an M1 Garand, the M1 Abrams might take a while. Unless they take a check. At least man to man I gots it covered. Short of a TOW.

You too can own fully automatic weapons for the low low price of your soul and $200 a pop. (and a ton of hoops with a little more cash involved)

|6.26.09 @ 12:38AM|#

Does the posting of photographs and information about the judges make a crucial difference?

No, the postings make no difference because the posting was an exercise of a Constitutional right.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

Raoul Fenderson|6.26.09 @ 12:52AM|#

Criminalizing "threatening speech" is bullshit right from the start, because the whole notion of "threat" is subjective and can be gamed every which way by Big Brother and used selectively against those he wishes to silence.

Turner has been playing this game for years with the authorities, pushing the envelope and testing the limits. He constantly cites legal precedents to argue that his statements are "protected free speech" under the First Amendment. Well, now they want to use him to establish a new precedent and completely shut down the "extreme right wing" -- or, as I would characterize it, the fascist right. Well, folks, if you think this is a good thing, fine. "I'm sorry, I can't help you." Somewhere on down the line it will be the "extreme left," or libertarians, or vegetarians, or people who don't like Islam or Christianity, who will be arrested and gagged.

|6.26.09 @ 1:13AM|#

"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.".

If I didn't know better I'd wonder if Turner is Libertymike's alter ego.

Turner is a jackass. But saying that someone "deserves to die" - and that a murderer would be morally justified - in a blog entry is protected speech unless there is a reason to believe that he is using this medium to communicate an assassination order to subordinate(s) in some sort of organization.

Expressing one's views about when violence is justified is definitely protected speech. Even people with repugnant and idiotic views (like Turner) have a right to express them. Charging someone who speaks with conspiracy to commit a murder that someone else would be physically committing should require a very specific circumstantial relationship between the speaker and the physical murderer (e.g. paying a hitman, mob boss giving an order to a subordinate, etc). The fact that a person reading that blog might have agreed, and tried to put his moral theory into practice, is not sufficient to make this a crime.

|6.26.09 @ 8:23AM|#

If Mr. Turner was a Black Liberation Theology minister or member of NOI he would be given a pass. The FBI is rapidly becoming a tool of our PC obsessed culture.He shouldn't have posted their addresses in my opinion but I believe that info is readily available online.

robc|6.26.09 @ 8:31AM|#

The tallest blade of grass is the first to get cut.

Bullshit. You start with the blade in the corner between the driveway and the sidewalk, regardless of size.

|6.26.09 @ 8:33AM|#

Very similar to the anti-Prop 8 people in California. Same rhetoric, same tactics.

Didn't hear about the FBI visiting those folks.

|6.26.09 @ 12:40PM|#

'Think of movies that "inspire" crazy people to commit crimes. They don't go after the movies as incitement even though in a bare factual sense they did incite the act.'

Once the movie or book has inspired one wacko it is perfectly reasonable to assume it will inspire another one. Catcher in the Rye is an example.

bubba|6.26.09 @ 12:44PM|#

I won't be too upset if this moron gets slapped around by the judicial system.

He's probably just an internet troll, but when you recommend a course of action, and then provide material information to assist that course of action, how can you claim no responsibility for that action?

Sure, the information is "publicly" available, but he actually collated both the information, and the threat.

Besides, he's wrong on the merits of his case. :) However the 7th Circuit rules, SCOTUS would still have the final say.

|6.26.09 @ 2:08PM|#

"Even if this guy exhorted people to kill the judges, I still consider that free speech. Suggesting that people perform an illegal act should not be illegal. What about people who suggest that people perform civil disobedience? Should they be arrested?"

Good point even Al Sharpton didn't get in trouble for inciting a riot that ended in a burned building and I forget but someone may have even died due to the fire.

You know our Founders were all considered crack pots by many people as well. Good thing eventually enough of those crack pots got together and organized the Revolution. Revolution 2.0 is also going to be sponsered by crack pots only this time they are much better armed, none of that single shot shove it down the muzzle BS.

As for wishing for the deaths of those that are ripping our Rights to shreds and destroying to country I see no problem with that at all. We are only talking about a few hundred people here folks that need to go. Those same few hundred have no problem sending our troops to get killed by the thousands in the name of defending what exactly? OUR FREEDOMS and RIGHTS perhaps. So in my opinion if we have no problem asking young men and women to go die for this country and the Constitution they are sworn to protect. We shouldn't have any issue with hoping that those amoung us in power that are doing the very destroying of those rights be removed from power by any means required.

|6.26.09 @ 4:00PM|#

Ben - I appreciate your analysis. While I do believe that 80 million plain clothes Americans with rudimentary small arms does constitute a formidable force, unfortunately, history has shown that the majority is never subborned but rather a minority was. The military has intervened but unconstitutionally so.

The Bonus Army / Marchers are on good an example.

The internment of over 100,000 Japanese Americans during WWII was another example.

In both cases the military did not uphold the Constitution... and the public did nothing to stop it.

I can cite a more recent example. Remember the raid at the YFZ / FLDS ranch? Over 400 children where abducted by state police forces without proper constitutional authority to do so. I didn't see the military upholding the constitution there. I didn't see the public doing anything about it. The state of Texas drove that community into the ground for now other reason than prejudice.

Being armed is not enough. Without basic enlightment to libertarian principles we would just be a bunch of savages.

Yes, 80 million armed Americans are a formidable force. They would be an even more formidable force if they bothered to read the Constitution.

|6.26.09 @ 9:56PM|#

Government representatives saying "they deserve to die" and government representatives causing them to be listed, addresses and pictures and more.

Except that the "Government representatives saying 'they deserve to die'" weren't the same government representatives who were "causing them to be listed, addresses and pictures and more." In fact, the "Government representatives saying 'they deserve to die'" weren't "Government representatives" at all (assuming, of course, that by that you meant "representatives of the government"); they were representatives of their constituents who couldn't get the actual government to enact their proposals into law.

|6.26.09 @ 10:31PM|#

I thought about commenting, "Let me be the first to say this plainly: There are a lot of FBI agents who deserve to be anally raped with a sagauro cactus" and that "their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions," but then I remembered that "we in the FBI do not have a sense of humor of which we are aware."

Brett Stevens|6.29.09 @ 2:38AM|#

Reminds me of what happened to Turner's one-time buddy Bill White:

http://www.financialpost.com/small-business/tools/story.html?id=1065162

In neither case does it sound like they crossed the line, except the line of good taste.