North Bergen, NJ  (TRN) -- Round two of the media feeding frenzy over talk radio host Hal Turner has begun.  The Associated Press has run a story today reporting that Turner is due in Court in Hartford, CT Monday at 10:00 AM to face charges of "Inciting Harm to persons or property" over an opinion he expressed on his radio show web site.

"Connecticut does not have a legal leg to stand on" said Turner.  "My opinion was protected free speech because it was uttered in a context that did not lend itself to imminent lawlessness" he continued.

Turner says he relied on three separate U.S. Supreme Court cases as the basis for publishing his blog opinion. In one of those cases "Brandenburg v. Ohio" the Supreme Court held that advocating criminal acts and violence is protected speech except in two specific circumstances:

1) The speech must be designed to cause Imminent Lawlessness, AND;

2) The context in which the speech is uttered must be "likely" to cause imminent lawlessness.

Unless both criteria are met, the speech cannot be considered criminal. Turner says that expressing an opinion on an internet web site does not lend itself to imminent lawlessness. "I don't know of any person who will read something on the internet, then rush right out with a gun to kill someone because of what he read" Turner said. "Besides, I didn't give out any information about where to find the people mentioned in my opinion, so there was no possibility whatsoever that what I wrote could result in immediate harm to anyone" he continued.

Turner opined on his blog that certain acts by the Connecticut state government were "tyrannical" and he suggested that people in that state "take up arms" and "put down this tyranny." Turner's also said that he would reveal the home addresses of the state officials involved on his radio show two days later, but he was arrested in his home town in New Jersey prior to being able to air that show. 

'Separating the call to arms from giving out the addresses was a legally clever move because it prevented imminent lawlessness" said an attorney familiar with the case who asked to remain anonymous. "I believe Connecticut acted far too hastily by arresting Turner when they had other reasonable options to prevent harm and plenty of time to exercise those other options" the attorney 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."

This case has severe ramifications for anyone who uses the internet.  If the state of Connecticut can have someone in another state arrested for posting an opinion on a blog, then everyone who posts opinions on the internet can be hauled into court by anyone else in any other state.  "I do not know how the state of Connecticut deems to apply its law to me over something I wrote in New Jersey." Turner said 

Turner says he is confident he can defeat the charges.  He will enter a plea of Not Guilty at Monday's court hearing and is expected to remain free on $25,000 bail in Connecticut and another $25,000 Bail in New Jersey.  Based on the dual $25,000 Bail, free speech certainly isn't as free as one might think.

Feeding Frenzy Round 2 Article(s)

 Full details of the impact of this case on bloggers everywhere

turnerradionetwork.com/index.php