Blogger to face court over call to 'take up arms'

We're pretty screwed, aren't we. I wonder what Obama thinks about this? The schmuck supports and encourages the Iranian people to rise up against their oppressors, yet here within our own gangland you can be hauled off for merely talking about rising up against our oppressors! Yup, the United States of Hypocrisy. Well, so much for freedom of speech. Go figure! Oh well, Hal Turner is a racist, so go ahead and hang him, what do I care, ha.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Divinorumus]

reply to post by Divinorumus


Once again, exercising your freedom of speech does not preclude you from being liable for threats you might make.

This isn't a free speech issue.... this is taking responsibility for making threats or inciting a riot...

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Once again, exercising your freedom of speech does not preclude you from being liable for threats you might make.

Doesn't an uprising against the oppressors sort of ALWAYS imply a threat? If there comes a day when it becomes necessary to overthrow an oppressive regime, how would one go about doing so without implying some kind of threat?

The only real threat Hal made,was to shed light on the unlawful acts of the local government. I have a problem with people that believe words alone constitute physical harm. It is doubtful that ANYONE could,shoot,stab,or otherwise injure someone by merely speaking/writing WORDS. As far as charges to incite a riot.Where were all the rioters?
IF you throw a party and no one shows up,is it still a party?
Any way you slice it,this type of harrassment is just another infringment on free speech. As long as people allow these type of actions,they will continue to chip away at constitutional rights. Silence equals condonation!!!

When you call on people to kill people, then you should expect to get arrested, d'oh!

Incitement to murder is not protected speech, and never has been

Originally posted by xmotex
When you call on people to kill people, then you should expect to get arrested, d'oh!

Well, then lets get busy and start arresting everyone in the military! Which end should we start, with the generals, or the privates? Say, lets gather up all the hypocrites while we're at it too. And, lets start gathering up all the bloggers that have yelled death to some enemy of theirs too. Gee, we may not have enough jail cells for them all. BTW, has anyone seen that list of who it is okay to threaten and who we can't? A list would help to avoid any confusion.

Originally posted by Divinorumus

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Once again, exercising your freedom of speech does not preclude you from being liable for threats you might make.

Doesn't an uprising against the oppressors sort of ALWAYS imply a threat? If there comes a day when it becomes necessary to overthrow an oppressive regime, how would one go about doing so without implying some kind of threat?

Well if that is the case then they would be breaking the law. Which would make them criminal.

In a democratic republic you overthrow the government with ballots not bullets. If you are using bullets, no matter how philosophically correct you may feel, you are in fact breaking the law and going against the constitution of the US.

Freedom of speech does not protect your right to sedition.

Regardless, it's illegal to threaten anybody's life, and if someone files a complaint, you can get arrested.

Otherwise you could have Mafia dons ordering hits on people and saying "Hey, it's free speech! I didn't kill anybody, I just told someone else to!"

Originally posted by daddyroo45
The only real threat Hal made,was to shed light on the unlawful acts of the local government. I have a problem with people that believe words alone constitute physical harm. It is doubtful that ANYONE could,shoot,stab,or otherwise injure someone by merely speaking/writing WORDS. As far as charges to incite a riot.Where were all the rioters?
IF you throw a party and no one shows up,is it still a party?
Any way you slice it,this type of harrassment is just another infringment on free speech. As long as people allow these type of actions,they will continue to chip away at constitutional rights. Silence equals condonation!!!

The difference here is that when you make threats against someone or something, or incite others to do damage to person or property, you are now guilty of making threats. Even if those threats never come to fruition and even if no one gets hurt at all, we the people decided a long time ago that a threat of physical violence should be taken seriously and dealt with seriously.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by daddyroo45
The only real threat Hal made,was to shed light on the unlawful acts of the local government. I have a problem with people that believe words alone constitute physical harm. It is doubtful that ANYONE could,shoot,stab,or otherwise injure someone by merely speaking/writing WORDS. As far as charges to incite a riot.Where were all the rioters?
IF you throw a party and no one shows up,is it still a party?
Any way you slice it,this type of harrassment is just another infringment on free speech. As long as people allow these type of actions,they will continue to chip away at constitutional rights. Silence equals condonation!!!

The difference here is that when you make threats against someone or something, or incite others to do damage to person or property, you are now guilty of making threats. Even if those threats never come to fruition and even if no one gets hurt at all, we the people decided a long time ago that a threat of physical violence should be taken seriously and dealt with seriously.

So much for personal freedoms then. I guess that people deserve what they get when they think out loud. Maybe the next step in the evolution of this type of behavior,would be prison sentences for non compliant diabetics,and people with anorexia. Their diets(or lack thereof) could be considered a physical threat to themselves.
Are people that stupid? Would they follow someone elses WORDS blindly?
Where has common sense gone? If I said "someone should shoot you into space" Would that be a threat? Or would it be an accessment as to your ability to become an astronaut?

"So much for personal freedoms?"

Are you kidding?

The First Amendment doesn't give you any more right to threaten to kill people than the Second Amendment gives you the right to go randomly shooting at people.

It's not complicated, and it hardly qualifies as political repression.

Originally posted by xmotex
"So much for personal freedoms?"

Are you kidding?

The First Amendment doesn't give you any more right to threaten to kill people than the Second Amendment gives you the right to go randomly shooting at people.

It's not complicated, and it hardly qualifies as political repression.

Voltaire's statement would fall on deaf ears around here. He should have said, you can say only what I agree with.

At what point does thought equal action?

reply to post by daddyroo45


It's not about thought....


It's about words... specifically threats, which for all intents and purposes can be seen as promises. If someone promises to cause damage to you or your property we would be negligent not to assume they mean what the say.

Maybe Turner should of voiced his views in a little more eloquent manner and he wouldn't be standing before a judge. His language was very violent in its' delivery. Maybe no harm was done to anyone, but that is for now; but who knows how many got his message and are ticking time bombs. Any violent threats should be taken seriously and followed up on by the authorities. However, the man is still protected by the First Amendment and the court will decide his guilt or innocence. The Supreme Court ruled on a case similar to the one being discussed in the thread in 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who was convicted of verbally inciting violence against the government.

The Court made its decision by distinguishing between two kinds of violent speech. One kind incites, or encourages, immediate violence against the government. For example, Brandenburg would have encouraged immediate violence if he had said, "let's go right now and burn down the building where they're passing laws to help the civil rights movement." The Supreme Court said speech that encourages immediate violence and is likely to succeed is not protected by the freedom of speech. It is too dangerous.

www.enotes.com...

Check the link above for a more thorough understanding of the case but I think it is good reference to some of questions posed in the thread.





[edit on 22-6-2009 by Jakes51]

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Jakes51]

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Jakes51]

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Jakes51]

Hal Turner - bigot, racist, anti-Semite, known neo-nazi, all around scumbag - and now, it would seem, hero of ATS? Good God people, what has this place become.

Originally posted by Monger
Hal Turner - bigot, racist, anti-Semite, known neo-nazi, all around scumbag - and now, it would seem, hero of ATS? Good God people, what has this place become.

I agree with you that the man is a piece of slime, however, the same First Amendment that protects you and I; protects him as well. However, we should sit back and let the courts determine his guilt for his violent and insidious remarks. Again, I second your views on the man.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Jakes51]

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Jakes51]

Textreply to post by HunkaHunka


"In a democratic republic you overthrow the government with ballots not bullets. If you are using bullets, no matter how philosophically correct you may feel, you are in fact breaking the law and going against the constitution of the US."

Where have you been for the last 3 elections ? Voting only works if you have the money....lots of it. There is only one way to get rid of the bad guys....and it has been that way since day one.

reply to post by tristar


Another pre-empitve charge of a criminal act that MIGHT have happened?

Did he or anyone actually take up any arms against any of the law makers?

So if he loses his case wouldn't that mean that I can be arrested for saying, "I'm so going to kill him"?

Couldn't someone be arrested for incited violence if they say, "Go ahead, hit me"?

I don't think that I will go into detail about how upset I am about this because I know most of you all feel the same way.

I agree with those that have said be careful what you say on these sites now.

Even trying to start a protest will get you arrested for "low-level" terrorism.

*sigh* I get more and more stressed out every day that this is it. This is the unfortunate time the world has waited for. Just look around. It might not be in the next year or two. But even 10 or 20 is way too close for my comfort.

Originally posted by daddyroo45

Originally posted by xmotex
"So much for personal freedoms?"

Are you kidding?

The First Amendment doesn't give you any more right to threaten to kill people than the Second Amendment gives you the right to go randomly shooting at people.

It's not complicated, and it hardly qualifies as political repression.

Voltaire's statement would fall on deaf ears around here. He should have said, you can say only what I agree with.

At what point does thought equal action?

I agree 100%

ps. first time using quote tag,sorry that it took so long for me to figure it out mod.

reply to post by Grayelf2009


Once you bring guns into the picture all bets are off, and we start at anarchy again.

It's not like all of the things we hope for magically becomes real, we would have simply thrown off the government.

Then comes the power vacuum. Rapes, murders, and general death and destruction.

Even in the French Revolution there were assassinations right and left after that for quite some time... The guillotine didn't stop being used on the aristocracy.. it was leveraged on many people who rose to power after as well.


This is why, we use ballots as opposed to bullets. Yes it takes money, primarily to become known, and to combat the constant disinformation from the opposition, but keep in mind that Obama raised a TON of money from the individuals who supported him. I gave for the first time ever, and all of my family did as well... so money is there, if people believe in what you are campaigning for...

I'd rather it take money to get elected in a peaceful manner than to have a crazy power vacuum with anarchy in the streets.