Posted on 06/13/2009 3:13:01 PM PDT by bdeaner
...today police are saying that one blogger, Harold “Hal” Turner, crossed the line when he suggested some Connecticut government officials should “obey the Constitution or die. ”Turner, a New Jersey native, was apparently angry about proposed legislation that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches in Connecticut more control over their parish’s finances, the Associated Press is reporting. The blogger and radio show host turned himself in to the Connecticut police this afternoon on a charge of inciting violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at features.csmonitor.com ...
Oh yikes. Now the Catholic Church is linked in the minds of the witch-hunters with this nutjob.
No, he was criticizing the Catholic Church, I believe. I don’t know the full context, but if you read the article, it’s clear he was speaking against the Church.
No he was defending the church against the legislature. Things are so bad out there that strident voices are being heard...
http://www.connpost.com/ci_12513294
Excerpt
Harold Charles Turner, of North Bergen, also known as Hal Turner, was arrested by State Capitol Police for inciting injury.
The arrest came the day after his blog alluded to using guns against Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, and Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, and Thomas K. Jones, enforcement officer for the Office of State Ethics.
Turner, 47, was booked in New Jersey, pending extradition to Connecticut.
FYI
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/06/04/neo-nazi-shock-jock-hal-turner-arrested-for-incitement/
It reads that Turner is also a paid informant for the FBI. He wanted to shoot W, send a drone with bombs to 0 and shoot mexicans.
More to this story we may never know.
I didn’t know anything about this guy before hearing of his arrest. It looks like he spoke of or wrote of violence against government officials. OK, That’s not good. But we had 8 years of threats against W and the Republicans, so -what’s the difference? Where is the line drawn? And exactly what constitutes threats or hate speech? We know the old rules are out and the new rules are in - whatever they are. The only thing we can be sure of is that liberals can get away with just about anything and conservatives need to be very, very careful.
State moves to restrict Catholics in politics
Official contends church must register as ‘lobbyist’ to speak out
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99836
Not the same thing, per se, but what about Grassley’s quote to the AIG execs? It was in poor taste, but still in the realm of free speech. Or did the guy actually say he was gonna kill someone?
>>>The only thing we can be sure of is that liberals can get away with just about anything and conservatives need to be very, very careful.
Hal Turner aligns himself with the Neo Nazi circles. They are the National Socialists.
I don’t see how any reference to conservatives can be used in your post.
thanks...
fyi, he’s a banned FReeper
added ct and nj to topics
Then again, no one gripes about "Live Free or Die" on a New Hampshire license plate...
Makes you wonder just who got to him to make him act out.
and is it inciting violence unless there is a proven violent act
resulting from what the guy said?
Can I tell my neighbor to “drop dead”?
And if he does, can they get me for inciting death?
Plenty of Black Churches spout political action right from the pulpit and never would receive such attention.
Reverend Right anybody.
Please don’t misinterpret my post. I didn’t say this man is a conservative. Note that, in fact, I said I never heard of him before learnng of his arrest. My point is that there were many threats against Republicans during the last several years, and these were not addressed by law enforcement. Correct? This man is arrested for making a threat, apparently. So - where is the line drawn? I do think conservatives are going to be under fire, and we’ve already seen it. You don’t agree? If there are no hard-and-fast rules that are applied equally across the board, we’re all in trouble and any one of us can be arrested on a whim.
If this man is a Neo Nazi, of course his ideas should be challenged. Should he be arrested? If he violated the law, of course. But here’s the point: The law that governs his behavior needs to govern the behavior of others in a consistent way.
“I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” - Voltaire, 1770
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” - First Amendment to the US Constitution, adopted Dec. 15, 1791
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, author of The Friends of Voltaire, 1906
Even, as much as I hate this hate speech...
We need to be careful of ideals we wish to quash. When topics are unpopular and offensive, they tend to stay that way.
But when we wish to restrict them entirely, a little bit of our Liberty dies ... and opens the door for ideals to be restricted by others.
For example, “Right-Wing Extremism” can be defined, or re-defined, as those in power deem fit.
The people being threatened are the ones that need to file reports. If there was no reports filed, then no actions were taken. It is illegal to incite violence.
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.