Posted on 08/13/2010 4:10:48 PM PDT by Cardhu
A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago judges.
Turner's mom and teenage son gasped and sobbed as the jury found the Internet shock jock guilty of a single charge of threatening to murder the judges - a charge that carries up to 10 years in prison.
An ashen-faced Turner stripped off his tie and belt and handed his wallet to a clerk before he was led out of the courtroom in downtown Brooklyn.
"I love you, dad," his son, Michael Turner, 16, said after the verdict was read.
Relatives of Turner angrily denounced the lightning-quick verdict, which came on the fourth day of his second retrial.
Two previous trials ended in mistrials after jurors were unable to agree on a verdict.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond, Turner's mother. "These judges, their job is to protect the Constitution, not shred it.
She hugged her grandson who also insisted his father did nothing wrong.
"It's totally wrong," Michael Turner. "It's (his) opinion not a threat."
Jurors rushed out of the Brooklyn Heights courtroom without speaking to reporters. No date was set for sentencing.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
If they really want you, you’re going down.
It’s pretty much that simple.
Do I understand this correctly? He said the judges deserved to be killed, then wrote out their home addresses, all on his blog?
I despise people like Turner, and threatening federal judges is a bad idea. But this is not journalism. New Dork Daily Spews= Fail.
Saying that judges deserve to die for their rulings is over the top, but probably not a crime. Saying they deserve to die for their rulings and publishing their home addresses and pictures along with that screed is what seems to have done him in.
OK if this is all he did then I have problems with him going to jail. Yeah its in bad taste and I don't condone it but part of having the right of free speech is having to endur the stupid crap dumbshits like Turner say.
Third time’s a charm. That should teach him to trust the “public defender.”
Hal Turner is no Conservative. Of course, the media will portray him as such to smear Conservatives.
There's no threat involved in that.Not explicit or implied.He did not clearly state...or even imply...that *he* intended to harm any judges.He also did not clearly...or implicitly...call on anyone *else* to do so.But what he did was certainly stupid.And I suppose that it could be a crime to reveal personal info about certain government officials.
For every out of control nut job you hear about, there are thousands of rough men standing ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
Keep pushing libtards, they will reach their threshold of tolerance soon.
That wasn't what he was charged with, and I think the addresses were publicly available. He was prosecuted for threatening to kill them, and this sounds like a borderline case. This may be reversed on appeal.
I am sure the home addresses did him in - that is blatant incitement and direction to any crazy in his audience.
He should know that, everyone in radio and TV, any sensible person with a big microphone knows that addresses coupled with a death threat a NO-NO.
No doubt he got carried away but it went far beyond an opinion.
If Turner is a conservative, Obama is too.
You appear to think he is innocent. What are the facts?
“There goes the First Amendment for everyone,” said Kathy Diamond, Turner’s mother. “These judges, their job is to protect the Constitution, not shred it.
Only problem is, the first amendment only covers print journalism. Not that I agree with that or the verdict, it just is what it is
I am sure the home addresses did him in - that is blatant incitement and direction to any crazy in his audience.
He should know that, everyone in radio and TV, any sensible person with a big microphone knows that addresses coupled with a death threat a NO-NO.
No doubt he got carried away but it went far beyond an opinion.
Of course I do not think he was innocent (see Post 16.) I was just remarking on the three trials.
Freedom of press only covers print, I should have said. Freedom of speech is another matter.It was a stupid thing to do and borders on yelling fire in a theater
On December 6, 2006, Turner announced on his website: "We may have to ASSASSINATE some of the people you elect on Nov. 7! This could be your LAST ELECTION CHANCE, to save this Republic... Sorry to have to be so blunt, but the country is in mortal danger from our present government and our liberty is already near dead because of this government. If you are too stupid to turn things around with your vote, there are people out here like me who are willing to turn things around with guns, force and violence. We hope our method does not become necessary."[32]
On April 4, 2008, Turner encouraged violence against Lexington, Massachusetts school superintendent Paul Ash for establishing a new curriculum supporting gays and lesbians. On his website, he stated:
"I advocate parents using FORCE AND VIOLENCE against Superintendent Paul B. Ash as a method of defending the health and safety of school children presently being endangered through his politically-correct indoctrination into deadly, disease-ridden sodomite lifestyles."[36]
==========
Seems to me that he should rightfully rot in jail.
Even if the Freedom of the Press was construed with such wooden literalism so as to apply only to the print media (because TV and radio do not use presses for the dissemination of ideas), surely the Freedom of Speech could not be interpreted in such a niggardly fashion. That being said, I don’t think that a law that punishes a person who calls for the murder of citizens and publishes their home addresses violates the First Amendment in any way, shape or form.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.