Internet radio host Hal Turner disliked how three federal judges rejected the National Rifle Association’s attempt to overturn a pair of handgun bans.
“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed,” Turner wrote on his blog on June 2, according to the FBI. “Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.”
The next day, Turner posted photographs of the appellate judges and a map showing the Chicago courthouse where they work, noting the placement of “anti-truck bomb barriers.” When an FBI agent appeared at the door of his New Jersey home, Turner said he meant no harm.
He is now behind bars awaiting trial, accused of threatening the judges and deemed by a U.S. magistrate as too dangerous to be free.
Turner’s case is likely to test the limits of political speech at a time when incendiary talk is proliferating on broadcast outlets and the Internet, from the microphones of well-known commentators to the keyboards of anonymous netizens.Blogger’s Case May Test Limits of Political Speech - washingtonpost.com
Had Turner simply said he wanted the judges dead, its Constitutional protection would at least be debateable (albeit still despicable). But posting their photos and workplaces, and revealing security info about the building pretty clearly crosses the line to incitement in my book.
Jail the jerk.
A small Kansas church that has gained nationwide attention for protesting loudly at funerals of U.S. service members killed in overseas conflicts received a temporary victory from the Supreme Court over their free speech rights.The justices Monday rejected an appeal from Missouri officials over their efforts to keep members of the Wichita-based Westboro Baptist Church from demonstrating at least 300 feet from memorial services and burials.
The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believes God is punishing the United States for “the sin of homosexuality,” through events including soldiers’ deaths. Members have traveled the country, shouting at grieving family members at funerals and displaying such signs as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Blew Up the Troops” and “AIDS Cures Fags.”
A few thoughts:
Did Fox News host Bill O’Reilly kill abortion provider Dr. George Tiller? Reading some of today’s outraged commentary by pro-choice writers in both America and Britain, you could be forgiven for thinking so. Scott Roeder might be suspected of actually pulling the trigger, but O’Reilly—and other loudmouth, right-wing anti-abortionists—have already been found guilty of egging him on in the kangaroo court of liberal opinion. […]
This reaction to Tiller’s death is driven by cowardice and censoriousness, by a desire to protect the pro-choice argument from the extremely vivid, sensationalistic, and, yes, frequently hysterical attacks of the anti-abortion brigade. In a left-leaning version of the traditional effects theory—which holds that some films, TV shows, and videogames should be toned down or wiped out entirely since they allegedly make young people violent—pro-choice commentators now seem to want “outlandish rhetoric” restricted on the grounds that it is, literally, murderous.
But like all instinctive censors, they blur the distinction between words and actions. There is neither moral equivalence nor a direct link between O’Reilly’s rants and what happened to Tiller on Sunday. To seek to restrict a broadcaster’s speech on the basis that it might inflame viewers to do something awful is an insult to all of us, since we’re treated as little more than dumb attack dogs that hear “orders” and then carry them out. And to seek to restrict speech on the basis that it might coax one or two unhinged loners to do something awful would be turn society into the equivalent of a lunatic asylum, where everyone watches their words and controls their tone of voice just in case they give a madman the wrong impression.
Also note the end of this related NYT story:
Burt Neuborne, a professor of law at New York University and a former legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that while the debate was not new, “the ability to technologically call up snippets of speech” is.
Mr. Neuborne said that a commentator’s language, no matter how colorful, generally cannot be treated as an incitement unless it directly instructs individuals to commit violence.
“In every complex political setting, there’s a tendency to single out the loudest of the other side and claim that what they’re doing is not political speech but is incitement,” he said. “It’s important not to allow that to happen. It would have a dramatic effect on the ability to speak vigorously.”
Don’t even get me started on all the inflamatory speech about Bush that has come from frothing-at-the-mouth liberals over the last eight years.
Liberty University has revoked its recognition of the campus Democratic Party club, saying “we are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by” the university.
“It kind of happened out of nowhere,” said Brian Diaz, president of LU’s student Democratic Party organization, which LU formally recognized in October.
Diaz said he was notified of the school’s decision May 15 in an e-mail from Mark Hine, vice president of student affairs.
According to the e-mail, the club must stop using the university’s name, holding meetings on campus, or advertising events. Violators could incur one or more reprimands under the school’s Liberty Way conduct code, and anyone who accumulates 30 reprimands is subject to expulsion.
Liberty University, ironically named.
This is unfortunate because it reveals the apparent narrow perspective that Liberty has on religion and politics. Christianity is not fully compatible with any political party. The idea that Liberty would deny a Democrat club categorically but not do the same for a Republican club is pathetic (really, they should do neither). Yes, Democratic support for abortion is abhorrent (one of the reasons given by Liberty), but so is some Republican support for nasty and punitive legislation against illegal immigrants. Some would argue that certain interrogation techniques violate basic human rights and contradict various Biblical teachings. Does Republican support for that disqualify them from full support by Liberty?
A liberal arts university should not dictate or regulate political clubs on campus. Doing so is fundamentally anti free-thought and anti free-speech.
Citizens United (Hillary: the Movie) v. Federal Election Commission
Free speech is under attack in America under the insidious guise of campaign finance reform.
Had I been charged with hate speech 10 years ago, I could not have fought back as effectively. If all this had happened in 1996 instead of 2006, few would have known anything about my battle. YouTube, which brought my story alive for 600,000 people by the time the traffic died down, debuted only in 2005. Before that, there was no universally surfed repository of current event–themed videos, and bloggers were much less prevalent. And without the credit card donations made possible by PayPal (which was started in 2000), it’s unlikely that I could have raised the money to cover my legal expenses. In short, the Internet saved me. In that sense, my story isn’t just about free speech. It’s also about the way new technology has leveled the playing field between big government and private citizens.— The Internet Saved My Tongue: How I beat Canada’s ‘human rights’ censors - Reason Magazine
Evan Coyne Maloney discusses “Indoctrinate U” with Lou Dobbs (CNN, March 11th, 2009)
sds:
LONDON - An anti-gay U.S. Christian preacher and his daughter have been barred from entering Britain as they could spread “extremism and hatred,” the British government said Thursday.The Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, had been due in Britain to protest at a play about the murder of a gay man.
But British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she had decided to prevent Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper from entering the country.
This is great news. Fred Phelps is an awful human being. Most Kansans have had a run in of their own, or know someone who has dealt with Phelps. If you haven’t seen it, and are interested, I suggest you watch Fall From Grace.
Whether or not you agree with anything he says, or whether or not he’s an awful human being, it’s kind of shocking you’d support denying him the opportunity to protest. You don’t have to agree with someone to support their civil liberties.
For the record, I also think he’s a pretty dispicable person. But just because I disapprove of what he says or how he says it does not mean we should not defend his right to say it.
Agreed. While I also despise Phelps, were he an anonyblogger on tumblr that got the boot, I’d support his reinstatement. The right to free speech and to protest are paramount.
let him go. the more he opens his mouth, the better it is for our cause. however, i don’t think Britain has the same freedom of speech as the US.
I like our way of handling him in the US: get a bunch of bikers to go between him and whatever he’s protesting (military funeral, perhaps?) and just rev their harley’s really really loud so the people he’s protesting can’t hear the stupid shit that comes out of his mouth.
did i ever mention that my mom has a harley? my dad had one when i was growing up too. bikers are awesome.
NTKG, I am truly ashamed and embarrassed by Phelps, especially since he throws his lot in with other Christians. I don’t know the state of his heart toward God, but the state of his heart toward people is very clear, and it speaks volumes. I sincerely apologize for the hurt, pain and indignity this man and his ilk may have caused you and/or the gay community. No matter how you and I differ morally and theologically, I will always strive to treat you with respect as a person created in the image of God. Your humanity is ultimately more important to me than your sexuality.
LONDON - An anti-gay U.S. Christian preacher and his daughter have been barred from entering Britain as they could spread “extremism and hatred,” the British government said Thursday.The Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, had been due in Britain to protest at a play about the murder of a gay man.
But British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she had decided to prevent Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper from entering the country.
This is great news. Fred Phelps is an awful human being. Most Kansans have had a run in of their own, or know someone who has dealt with Phelps. If you haven’t seen it, and are interested, I suggest you watch Fall From Grace.
Whether or not you agree with anything he says, or whether or not he’s an awful human being, it’s kind of shocking you’d support denying him the opportunity to protest. You don’t have to agree with someone to support their civil liberties.
For the record, I also think he’s a pretty dispicable person. But just because I disapprove of what he says or how he says it does not mean we should not defend his right to say it.
Agreed. While I also despise Phelps, were he an anonyblogger on tumblr that got the boot, I’d support his reinstatement. The right to free speech and to protest are paramount.
Lord Malcolm Pearson had invited the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party [Geert Wilder] — who was indicted last month in his home country for “inciting hatred and discrimination” against Muslims — to discuss his anti-Islam film “Fitna.” The 15-minute video juxtaposes Quranic verses that call for jihad with clips of terror attacks. The British Home Office said his presence would pose a “serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society,” arguing that his statements on Islam “would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the U.K.” A Home Office spokesman added: “The government opposes extremism in all its forms.—
Except, apparently, the extremism that is known as “blocking free speech.”
