Jury in hate blogger Hal Turner's case told judge: We're deadlocked

Jury in hate blogger Hal Turner's case told judge: We're deadlocked

www.nj.com

The federal jury considering the case against North Bergen hate blogger Harold "Hal" Turner told the judge yesterday that they are "hopelessly deadlocked,'' according to northjersey.com.

The jurors had only deliberated two hours, though, and the judge told them to be back at the Brooklyn courthouse on Monday and try again.

(visit the link for the full news article)

While not wanting to get into a debate over Turner's actual actions, I find this situation highly interesting. The jurors spent only two hours and reached a conclusion that they cannot go any further. Those who were holding firm to the "free speech" position must have been adamant with the other jurors about not continuing further deliberations. This is a testament to the American populace holding true to a core set of beliefs. It clearly shows an identifiable subset of individuals who will stand up for that which they maintain is the foundation of the American culture (ethical or moral ambiguities surrounding the issue set aside).

www.nj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by thomasblackraven


I am unsure if he is guilty of anything but I can assure you he has lost all credibility. He admitted he was working for the Feds in trying to trap people or incite others to commit violence.

He was an informer and I don't give him much time after he is released. There are a lot of people really pissed at him. It seems to me all he did was post hate and "this or that person" should be whacked along with their home addresses. A crime? Unsure myself...

He sure did destroy his life. The feds seem to now hate him and so do his followers.. What an idiot huh...?

The issue, as it often is, is should a writer be responsible for the effects of his or her work, or does free speech trump everything else?

You could argue, for example, that poet Sylvia Plath was not responsible for the suicides or suicide attempts by readers of her poetry, just because she wrote of her own struggles with it and did eventually kill herself. People have to be responsible for their own reactions to the world.

On the other hand, shouldn't writers who intentionally aim at inflaming their readers and consciously want to incite hatred and/or violence or even murder accept some degree of responsibility for their actions and intentions? I would say yes, as in the case of the subject of the OP. He is responsible much as someone who rushes to a fire and throws gasoline on the flames is responsible for contributing to it.

My husband disagrees with me. He is a free speech absolutist, as are many other Americans.

Countries like Canada and England have hate speech laws to deal with situations like these. These laws are not perfect; sometimes simple disapproval of someone or something can be exaggerated into hate speech accusations.

I'd say that if one errs, it's probably better to err on the side of free speech. But I do believe writers and artists should carefully weigh their effects on the public and accept a degree of responsibility for their actions and intentions.

reply to post by Sestias


I agree, it is a fine line but I also have to agree with your husband. Canada and the U.K. are way out of control with what you can and cannot say. It seems there are protected classes of people in both of those countries that can say or do anything they want that may offend but other groups are brought before the judge for just an opinion.

It is a fine line to walk but I think your husband is right. It just needs to be left absolute or we risk going down that slippery slope.

i got a book once at a good will a long time ago written by hal turner.the late great planet earth, i think. alla bout how the worlds gonna end, jews and islam and 55 other things are all destroyin society, nwo, and just tons of the silliest things i ever heard, just heapin sh*t to the most far right completly ignorant of the world around them people.

when i saw he was an fbi informant, i found it quite funny. i wonder if all those people who read those books and believed some of the insane, ignorant things he said realized they got fooled in their core beliefs.

either way, this guy is a hoaxer of the worst kind(if you ask me) and i guess you'd have to claim he spreads disinformation, this sh*t is kinda dangerous and just drives people apart.

as to whether he should get in trouble for saying the judges should die? well i'll defend anyones right to free speech, so i say he can't get any more than terroristic threats. he should deifnetly get that. thats the charge for that crime.

I personally think that many Americans are sick of government railroading anyone that would exercise free speech be it popular or not. We may see more protests like this through court hearings in the next year. This is one spot in our country where the citizens voice still means something. I expect all of us to take advantage of it and convict the corrupt, and dismiss the wish-wash cases that seem more like political manuveurs rather than a real serious crime.