White supremacist talk show ranter and blogger Hal Turner has had a tough month.

The James Von Brunn heir apparent, known for espousing “Turner Diaries” type viewpoints on his blog and currently off the air radio show   was arrested earlier this month after officials spotted an entry on his blog that called for residents “take up arms” against Connecticut lawmakers.  .

The statements referred to legislation that would affect which group members of the Roman Catholic churches have control over parish finances.   In addition to his call to arms he  threatened to publish the addresses of lawmakers who sided against church officials.  In addition, his blog(no longer online) reportedly contained the following statement:

“These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die. If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they’re going to get uppity with us about this; I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too.”"

Turner was  charged  with “inciting injury to three state officials, a felony.  Turner claims he  was exercising his right to free speech.

Not long after the above arrest, he was arrested again by the FBI on charges he threatened to kill three federal appellate judges in Chicago.   As in the Connecticut matter he posted the addresses and this time included photos of the judges along with his rant.  The federal criminal complaint(pdf) reads:

“the defendant threatened to assault and murder three United States Judges with intent to retaliate against such judges on account of official duties in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 115(a)(1)(b)”

As you can see from the actual language in the complaint there is some pretty strong languagee. Does it rise to the level of a threat to kill a federal judge or is it 1st Amendment protected speech?

My thoughts.

In the Connecticut case there is no 1st Amendment protection for his statements taken as a whole.  If he would have left it as a call to arms he would have been fine.  He would have  been ok  with the  addresses as well.

In my opinion however, the statements “obey the Constitution or die“ and ” I suspect we have enough bullets….“ taken together are present ability threats of violence and have no protection.

In the Chicago case, the language that is clearly inflammatory and inciting.  Does it rise to the level of personal threats as defined by the statute?

The statement “It appears another lesson is needed” go a long ways towards hanging him(figuratively) on that charge as it puts it in the present and makes him part of the threat, bringing him within the statute.

Protected free speech or criminal incitement and threats?  Where do ideas end and criminal instruction begin?  They don’t end with Hal Turner.  This is not an issue of the Constitutionally protected debate of ideas.  He is instructing people to commit crimes.  He is threatening federal judges with violence and with a present ability to carry it out.

It appears that Turner — who in the past has advocated spitting on Jews and carrying out “good old vigilante justice” against “Negroes” will have to adjust his rant to suit his prison audience who may be inclined to take up arms of their own. The difference is that theirs may have shivs in them.  As despicable as Mr. Turner is, I am not asking for a  call to arms.  I do think everyone who reads this should send him a copy of American History X COD.