RSS Feed
North Bergen, NJ - Judge Denies Bail For White Supremacist Radio Host Hal Turner |
|
| |
Published on:
Jun 25, 2009 at 02:07 PM
News Source: AP
Text Size
|
Advertisement:
Hal Turner appeared in federal court today. He's charged with threatening three appeals judges who refused to overturn handgun bans. The 47-year-old Turner was arrested Wednesday at his North Jersey home.
The charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Attorneys had offered to release Turner if he agreed to be confined to his North Bergen home and not use the Internet. But U.S. Magistrate Michael Shipp said he considered Turner a danger to the community and ordered him transferred to Illinois.
Turner's attorney, Michael Orozco, said he will still try to get Turner released on bai
More of today's headlines
“New York City - Straphangers looked to the MTA for reassurance yesterday, after investigators in Washington singled out the age and make of one subway car as a potential...”
New York City - D.C. Train Crash Has NYers Asking About Safety
Queens, NY - Bloomberg: Acquisition Of Waterfront To Build Middle Class Housing
Total8
Read Comments (8) — Post Yours »
1
Jun 25, 2009 at 03:20 PM Anonymous Says:
He's probably safer in jail than if he's out. Just forget about him & leave him be. He can't do any harm while he's there.
2
Jun 25, 2009 at 02:52 PM Anonymous Says:
To all those who have posted on VIN that it is OK to make implicit threats against public officials, incuding statements that they hoped some third party would kill or attack such officials, hopefully this arrest and prosecution will serve as a warning. it is your constitutional right to disagree in the most forceful terms, use dergogatory terms, etc. but you cannot post somthing that could result in assaults.
3
Jun 25, 2009 at 07:07 PM Milhouse Says:
“ To all those who have posted on VIN that it is OK to make implicit threats against public officials, incuding statements that they hoped some third party would kill or attack such officials, hopefully this arrest and prosecution will serve as a warning. it is your constitutional right to disagree in the most forceful terms, use dergogatory terms, etc. but you cannot post somthing that could result in assaults. ”
And you continue to lie. What does this prove? That some criminal magistrate ignores the constitution and the law? Just add him to Turner's Bivens suit, and he will lose his house too. The first amendment is still law, and it is perfectly lawful to say that the president ought to be killed. It's even OK to say that if I were conscripted and given a gun, the first man I'd want to get in my sights would be Obama. I could say that right in front of him, and nobody would have the right to touch me. And your crude threats won't change anything, nor will they deter me. Just face it, you are utterly ignorant of the law, so just keep your mouth shut.
4
Jun 25, 2009 at 09:16 PM Avrohom Abba Says:
Even if I would not be Jewish chaz veshalom, I would still hate this white supremacist because he is dumb enough to actually believe that one color of skin is superior to others, and because he is probably in favor of Hitler who was responsible for killing tens of thousands of brave American soldiers.
5
Jun 25, 2009 at 09:59 PM Milhouse Says:
“ Even if I would not be Jewish chaz veshalom, I would still hate this white supremacist because he is dumb enough to actually believe that one color of skin is superior to others, and because he is probably in favor of Hitler who was responsible for killing tens of thousands of brave American soldiers. ”
Hate him all you like. He's an antisemite, a 9/11 troofer, and all-around nut. That's the beauty of the bill of rights; it protects everybody, even the detestable and the insane. (Though he's right about Connecticut's attempt to take over the Catholic church. And he's right about judges who defy the second amendment; they deserve to be put up against a wall.)
6
Jun 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM Anonymous Says:
who need Hal Turner to incite riot against Jews we do it to ourself with bad behavior treating each other like dirt Nixon was right
7
Jun 26, 2009 at 10:42 AM Not So... Says:
Milhouse- First amendment protections are NOT absolute....
As the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v Ohio:
"Advocacy of violence may be prohibited when it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
8
Jun 26, 2009 at 01:44 PM Milhouse Says:
“ Milhouse- First amendment protections are NOT absolute....
As the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v Ohio:
"Advocacy of violence may be prohibited when it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
”
I am perfectly well aware of that. Read those words carefully. To be unprotected speech must be (1) DIRECTED and (2) LIKELY to produce (3) IMMINENT lawless violence. All three elements are required. If any one is missing, the speech is protected. Now tell me how that contradicts anything I have written, and how it is relevant to this topic.