Rage against three judges leads to conviction

We read:

"After three trials, a jury convicted Internet radio host and blogger Hal Turner of threatening the lives of three U.S. appeals-court judges.

Turner, 48, was found guilty by a federal jury in Brooklyn, New York, of a single count of threatening in Internet postings to assault and murder the judges because he disagreed with one of their rulings. That was the only count he faced.

“There goes the First Amendment for everybody,” Turner’s mother, Kathy Diamond, said after the verdict. “Since when does words mean you threatened to kill somebody?”

Turner used his Web site to post the judges’ names, as well as their photographs and work addresses, and a map of their courthouse.

“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed,” Turner wrote of the appeals court panel in a Web posting. “Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.”

Source

Two previous juries were "hung" but the government kept on going until a jury gave the "right" answer. It was obviously clear to many previous jurors that saying somebody "deserves" to be killed is an expression of opinion, not a threat and, as such, is entitled to first Amendment protection. One hopes that the verdict is appealed.

He actually said in another posting: "We hope our method does not become necessary", referring to assassinations. So there was again no threat, just a warning of what could be.

He does seem to be a rather nasty bill of goods but he has the same speech rights as anybody else. When I hear of some atrocity, it certainly occurs to me on some occasions that the offender deserves to fry. Do I now have no right to say so in America?

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).