Jersey City & Kearny, NJ (TRN Staff) -- At a 3:30 PM hearing held yesterday in the Superior Court of New Jersey at 595 Newark Avenue, Jersey City, the Honorable Judge Kevin Callahan ordered that Hal Turner be freed on bail. At about 2:30 AM Tuesday morning, Turner was released from jail after posting $25,000 bail.

Turner had been held without bail at the Hudson County Correctional Center in Kearny, NJ after the State of Connecticut filed criminal charges against him over an opinion Turner expressed on this blog.

The opinion was uttered in New Jersey. At no time relevant to the criminal charge was Turner in Connecticut and no time did he contact any individual person in Connecticut. The unedited, original opinion which generated the arrest was titled "State Restricts Catholics from Politics" and remains available to the public lower on this page

Panicked Prosecutors rush to change charges

When Turner was first arrested, Connecticut claimed he had committed "Harassing communications" which is listed on the official arrest report. Apparently, Connecticut cannot make up its mind as to what they are charging because yesterday, Connecticut changed its charge. Turner is now charged with "Inciting harm to property or persons" a felony which carries a jail sentence of 1 to 10 years in prison.

Speaking about the charge against him from an undisclosed location after his release from jail, Turner said "Connecticut doesn't have a legal leg to stand on." "My remarks which advocated taking certain actions were crude political hyperbole uttered in a context which did not lend itself to imminent lawlessness. Saying something on the internet is a far cry from saying the exact same thing while standing in front of an angry mob outside a politician's house" he continued.

Rutgers Law School Professor Frank Askin, director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic, seems to agree. Askin told a local newspaper in Jersey City that based on the portions of Turner's blog he has seen, Connecticut may not have a case. "It's probably free speech,'' he said in an interview with The Jersey Journal. "The definition of incitement is very, very narrow under the Constitution's First Amendment."

The legal distinction is between "advocacy" and "incitement," he said. "I think it's on the advocacy side of the line and it is protected by the First Amendment."

Supreme Court Case Law Supports Turner

The legal standard for what is "advocacy" and what is unlawful "incitement," was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case "Brandenburg v. Ohio" 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) which ruled that advocating crime is protected free speech as long as the remarks are uttered in a context which does not lend itself to imminent lawlessness. In that case, Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

The question for the Supreme Court was this: Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio law did, in fact, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution. The Connecticut law under which Turner has been charged suffers the same defect. In addition the circumstances of Turner's utterance -- on the internet -- lacks the potential for "imminent lawlessness."

A second U.S. Supreme Court case also deals with this issue with regard to talking about killing elected politicians.

" Watts v. United States" 394 U.S.705 (1969) Id. at 708 which specifically allows and protects talk of killing government officials (even the President of the United States) when there is little likelihood the speech will be acted upon. Such talk is defined by the court as "crude political hyperbole."

Between the Brandenburg case and the Watts case, Turner says he will defeat Connecticut. He says that his opinion, published on June 2, did not result in any illegal actions anywhere, yet he was arrested a full day later even though nothing happened. "Having an entire day go by with no criminal act kind of cuts the heart out of the idea my remarks could cause imminent lawlessness" he said.

Turner says once he defeats the criminal charge, he will sue Connecticut for false arrest, false imprisonment, deprivation of Constitutional rights under color of law and libel for falsely calling him a fugitive from justice.

Court Records show Connecticut lied

He seems to have a good case already. In a shocking twist to this story, it is now a matter of official court record that the State of Connecticut executed a false instrument to have Turner arrested and held without bail and also filed a false affidavit in yesterday's court hearing.

In both instances, Connecticut informed New Jersey authorities that Turner had fled prosecution which was why Connecticut issued a "fugitive from justice" warrant. Since Connecticut's Warrant claimed Turner had fled prosecution, Turner was arrested at his New Jersey home and held for days without bail. One might chalk the Warrant up to an error, but not after yesterdays court hearing.

In that court hearing, Connecticut submitted an Affidavit to the Superior Court of NJ which also said Turner had fled prosecution. There's just one problem: Turner did not flee prosecution. Connecticut lied, twice.

"This prosecution is malicious" said Turner. "They are trying to intimidate me into shutting up but I will not be intimidated. They have willfully lied in official documents, twice! " he continued.

Turner went on to say that his opinion piece was published on June 2 at 10:00 AM. The next day, he was in jail as a fugitive. "How could I have fled Connecticut when I wasn't in that state to begin with" he asked. "They are trying to bully me into being quiet-- but by arresting me falsely, they have only made things worse for themselves. King George III did similar things in 1776 which was among the reasons cited in the Declaration of Independence that resulted in his government being overthrown. Connecticut seems to have forgotten history. Those who fail to remember history are sometimes doomed to repeat it" Turner added.

The case now moves to the Connecticut Courts where it will be vigorously fought. At stake: The public's right to speak their opinions without being jailed as fugitives" versus Connecticut trying to jail a person for 1 to 10 years for speaking his opinion.

The legal costs for this case are expected to be extraordinarily high. Anyone wishing to assist in this defense of free speech is invited to send donations of cash, check or money order to:

Hal Turner

1906 Paterson Plank Road

North Bergen, NJ 07047-1900

USA

turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com/