What is Digg?197 Comments
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -2/+73Ok so I think you have the right to say anything you want, including wishing people no matter who they are dead. But when you start posting photos and phone numbers it's not so much free speech as a really stupid way of trying to solicit murder.
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -5/+75The police first arrested Hal Turner for calling for violence against two Connecticut state senators.... now he's been arrested for calling for the murder of three Chicago judges.
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -4/+73Why doesn't he stop advocating violence if he doesn't want to be arrested? Just a thought.
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -7/+62putting "abortionists" in quotes doesn't make it sound less legit it just makes you look like a clown for using baby killer and abortionist in the same sentence.
- warp99, on 06/25/2009, -1/+50Generalization of a group as one entity? Guilt by association? But using the phrase "another one for the liberals" is somehow not the same thing?
- Diefree, on 06/25/2009, -3/+504Christ you are an idiot. Tiller was a man that saved hundreds maybe thousands of women's lives despite the lies people like you tell about him. Operation Rescue and this guy are domestic terrorists. Operation Rescue has the blood of Tiller on their hands just like Bill O'Reilly, and if any of these judges are murdered this evil man will have blood on his hands. Operation Rescue's senior director is a convicted felon for plotting abortion clinic bombings and Tiller's coward murderer had his direct phone number in his car. People like you are disgusting to me for trying to turn our country into a theocracy where your religious beliefs will be forced on all of us.
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -2/+44Well 4Christ, You have officially written what I sincerely hope to be the stupidest thing I will read today.
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -6/+48FYI.
Threats of violence “directed to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death,” are NOT protected speech under the First Amendment. (Virginia v. Black, Supreme Court, 2003). - BabyWookie, on 06/25/2009, -3/+45Nutsosezwhat?
- kingnova, on 06/25/2009, -0/+40"Even though that person went around bragging, they say"
You just can't help yourself, can you? YOU are making conservatives look bad. Quit blaming others. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/25/2009, -8/+45Knowing how hate-mongers like him operate, he'll probably try to spin this as some kind of justification of his position.
- kentifer, on 06/25/2009, -3/+38I'll just leave this here.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Hal_Turner - rabidjester, on 06/25/2009, -2/+32"Everyone "losing it"-though I understand why?- are just fitting right into their plans."
You guys seriously weird me out. - DreKor, on 06/25/2009, -3/+30But he does want to be arrested. You're reading about him, aren't you? It's publicity. He's just trolling for a larger audience, hoping to get a reader who's crazy enough to do as they're told.
- joejitsu, on 06/25/2009, -2/+26He was just trying to warn us about a Jewish-bilderberg group-bohemian grove-banking cabal conspiracy to build landing strips for gay aliens. Obviously anyone that thinks he is crazy is one of their agents. Excuse me I am going to go read some more infowars and rense.
- ahhell, on 06/25/2009, -2/+26That wasn't even remotely coherent.
Even Buddy Jesus would bitch-slap the ***** out of you for being so stupid. - inactive, on 06/25/2009, -1/+24Drmangrum, it has been upheld in the highest courts that your right to free speech ends when it becomes a solicitation or intent for murder (Virginia v. Black, Supreme Court, 2003). The man in question called for their death, posted their personal information, and illustrated the defensive structures on their offices.
How is that not solicitng murder? - seanstuart, on 06/25/2009, -4/+26But he's not a potential terrorist because he's not a Muslim. Got it? Good.
- footbag01, on 06/25/2009, -12/+33Maybe his buddy Hannity will bail him out.
- orlandogeek, on 06/25/2009, -1/+21This arrest is a perfectly legal and proper action. If you hate someone you can certainly disparage their actions, or even call them names if you want. However, the minute you encourage your audience to take violent action against someone, you are just asking to be arrested.
- mccartyba, on 06/25/2009, -2/+21I think those have always been grounds to at least notify police.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 06/25/2009, -3/+22"I think the real reason Hal is being arrested is because the Feds are paranoid and not because there is truly an imminent threat."
Without going into details, are you sure you really want to stand behind that statement in light of recent events? - ApokalypseNow, on 06/25/2009, -1/+19This was not simply "his opinions and some facts", Turner was advocating the murder of these individuals.
- mockupscaledown, on 06/25/2009, -1/+18Wait, so you're mad at liberals for making racist criminals look bad? I can't decipher your post beyond that, yet 12 people dugg you up. Maybe they understand your strange dialect.
- trythison4sighs, on 06/25/2009, -1/+18That's were I would draw the line. If I was an ***** I might include photos and the phone numbers to their offices. But, when you "advocate violence"(which could be just venting about how he wishes they were shot for treason) you can NOT give out that info.
- inactive, on 06/25/2009, -2/+19Your understanding is incorrect. There is no requirement that the killing would have only been prevented by arresting that person.
Threats of violence “directed to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death,” are not protected speech under the First Amendment. (Virginia v. Black, Supreme Court, 2003)
But, it's not a strict rule; the statements must be looked at in context. The speech must be considered a "true threat." In the case above, the Sup Ct upheld Virginia's law barring cross burnings, stating that some cross burnings would be considered true threats. - TheUngod, on 06/25/2009, -0/+16There is a huge difference between saying "I wish you were dead" and actually inciting a violent act and providing a plan to kill them.
- pnunn, on 06/25/2009, -1/+17IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY MAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!
4Christ- "Their Plans?" Seriously?
God is gonna smack you so hard for dragging him into your crazy talk. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/25/2009, -3/+19Irrational hatred of minorities based on their ethnicity or religion is "the right idea"?
- Rubicant, on 06/25/2009, -1/+16"The charges in Connecticut carry a possible sentence of 1 to 10 years in prison upon conviction and the federal charges filed today carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine, officials said."
I think we're done hearing about him for awhile. - inactive, on 06/25/2009, -2/+17Weak attempt. Troll again later.
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/25/2009, -1/+15Your personal like or dislike of the matter has no bearing on the legality of Hal Turner's attempts to incite violence against those individuals.
- palanthos, on 06/25/2009, -3/+17If stupid hurt, I'd invest in tylenol and you'd make me rich.
- redmannine, on 06/25/2009, -1/+15Nah, Hannity will just wanna spend time with Turner when he's allowed conjugal visits.
- TheUngod, on 06/25/2009, -1/+14Maybe he likes the prison sex?
- FredFredrickson, on 06/25/2009, -0/+13You can say you wish someone were dead. But you can't call for the public to kill someone, which is what he was doing.
- Krakerjax, on 06/25/2009, -0/+13You're assuming he doesn't.
Look at the picture of him, that's not the face of some guy gone nuts, this man knew he was going to be arrested, he had a plan. He was determined. - inactive, on 06/25/2009, -1/+14Drmangrum, please reread the article. Since you're obviously either too stupid or lazy to do so, here is the relevant snippet:
""Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," Turner wrote on June 2, officials said, adding that Turner listed names, photos, phone numbers, work addresses and room numbers of the three judges.
A photo of the building where the judges have offices Turner posted on his Web site included circles and arrows marking "anti-truck bomb barriers," officials said."
How is this not intimidation, which, as you astutely pointed out, is NOT protected by free speech, as per the Supreme Court ruling in 2003? - ApokalypseNow, on 06/25/2009, -1/+14They do, but there is a distinct difference between douchebag behavior and Hal Turner's behavior - douchebags don't advocate the violent death of individuals they disagree with while simultaneously providing their addresses, phone numbers, pictures, and descriptions of their homes.
- SSPink, on 06/25/2009, -3/+15Your understanding of the law is severely flawed. The threat doesn't have to be against a certain person, it can be against a group of people (i.e. a white supremacist rally with a speaker yelling 'kill all *****!' is not protected speech) and there needn't be a conspiracy, conspiracy to commit murder is a completely different crime (and a more serious one), Mr. Turner was charged with threatening to assault and kill the judges.
It is not within the grounds of the first amendment to say that three people "deserve to be killed" and to list their work addresses (with home addresses promised to follow), photos, and a map highlighting the Chicago's federal courthouse's "anti-truck-bomb" pylons. At some point between "I think this person deserves to die" and what Mr. Turner did, he clearly passed the threshold of incitement of imminent lawless action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio - swamp916, on 06/25/2009, -0/+12Uhm yes. Suggesting someone should be shot, posting how to find them on your blog, and hoping someone with bigger balls does something about it is not protected by the constitution of the united states.
- sugarazor, on 06/25/2009, -0/+11Uh... yeah, of course it is. How much more clear would the threat need to be? S
- mccartyba, on 06/25/2009, -2/+13Quite correct, sir.
- diggduggDOOM, on 06/25/2009, -1/+12I'll just drink your beer.
- ironhide, on 06/25/2009, -8/+19So tell the truth NG2K, are you upset by his acts or his arrest?
- mtjohnson, on 06/25/2009, -5/+16I'll just leave this deer.
http://www.marty-prokop.com/blogpics/free_deer_hun ... - method7670, on 06/25/2009, -2/+13Anyone who calls this freedom of speech is not thinking.
Freedom of speech does not include being able to call to violence on people. - orlandogeek, on 06/25/2009, -1/+12Dugg for Buddy Jesus reference (even though it should be Buddy Christ, but hey that's nitpicking ^_^ )
- sugarazor, on 06/25/2009, -1/+11The KKK does not publicly advocate violence, not anymore at least. Their public persona is more of a separatist movement. That's not to say they're not advocating violence in private, but without proof, you can't do anything.
PETA has also never directly advocated violence, it's been seen in internal documents that they've supported those who do advocate violence, but there's never been a public statement calling for violence that I'm aware of. They should be investigated for those relationships though.
All very different than someone getting on the radio, giving out the names, phone numbers, room numbers and addresses of federal judges then saying "these judges deserve to be killed." That's not free speech, that's putting out a hit on someone. -
Show 51 - 100 of 205 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 